Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

[nutshell]

Looks like just today (January 18, 2019) plaintiff’s attorneys mucked up a filing (again). They’re on the third amended complaint, which tells me they are fighting a losing battle. It’s essentially they’re FOURTH attempt just to get out of the starting blocks.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I sure hope the guy suing is getting his legal work pro-bono.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Everybody here pretends this guy doesn't have solid evidence. He has. He has published his own creation on a very popular website, that was accessable from everywhere, and a suspiciously short amount of time later, CBS throws their own product out there, that has the exact same content, both in concept and peresentation. Yes, Tardigrades were in the news for some time. "Mansized blue sprakling Tardigrade in space as a means of direct FTL-travel" was not.

That's a suuuper unique concept.

It's a 'suuuper-unique concept' that isn't shared between discovery and this (not yet existant) game. Discovery's tardigrade is black and does not create FTL travel for the ship - the ship has its own spore drive making the Tardigrade only needed for navigation purposes, and even then it is almost immediately replaced by a human with tardigrade dna. The only representation of this idea in the game footage is of a bright blue tardigrade floating in space and physically hugging a man before making him disappear with a transporter effect. *There is no shot anywhere in Discovery that is even remotely equivalent to this.* Ripper is never even shown to be capable of carrying other beings with him through the spore network AT ALL. And the game tardigrade is never even shown to be capable of traveling through its own ftl system AT ALL, either - it's presented more as a biological transporter system.

The only thing these stories have in common is the concept of a man-sized tardigrade *which cannot be copyrighted at all* and the fact that both have some theoretical connection to ftl travel, but those connections are portrayed totally differently from one another *and therefore still aren't actually any sort of infringement*.

But all of this has been pointed out dozens of times before and you still continue to spout utter bull$h!t claims about 'obvious similarities' which literally don't exist.

 

[jespah]

How many times do you need to be told that his "Game" wasn't easily located before this all became public knowledge?
(hell , it was damn near impossible to find. I tried)
And it was After The Fact, that he began putting his stuff together in a tangible manner which could be even perceived AS a Game.
He had a jumble of ideas which were only cohearent to him, in a place that one would have to go completely out of one's way to even stumble across.
He didn't even begin to publically worry about a problem existing, until someone said to him he should file a lawsuit.
Abdin jumped into this head first only after some disgruntled Trek fans wanted CBS to stop making DISCOVERY and saw an opportunity to make imagined waves using someone else as their patsy.

This right here. ^

 

[BurnhamAll]

I sure hope the guy suing is getting his legal work pro-bono.

Not me. Make him pay for his frivolous action.

 

[Rahul]

How many times do you need to be told that his "Game" wasn't easily located before this all became public knowledge?
(hell , it was damn near impossible to find. I tried)
And it was After The Fact, that he began putting his stuff together in a tangible manner which could be even perceived AS a Game.
He had a jumble of ideas which were only cohearent to him, in a place that one would have to go completely out of one's way to even stumble across.
He didn't even begin to publically worry about a problem existing, until someone said to him he should file a lawsuit.
Abdin jumped into this head first only after some disgruntled Trek fans wanted CBS to stop making DISCOVERY and saw an opportunity to make imagined waves using someone else as their patsy.

"Not easily accessable" means jack-shit when it comes to stealing concepts and ideas.
There is a reason professional writers on this board avoid the "fancfiction"-section like hell: If they stumble upon an idea as somebody has written it down, and then use it or a similar one later in their own work, whoever wrote the original post here can sue them.

And that's how it is supposed to work: Even if you're a small, self-published writer, big-name companies shouldn't be allowed to just willy-nilly copy your work without repercussions, no matter how small or obscure you or your work is. Even though it would be really impossible for this specific poster to "prove" the writer saw exactly his thread as well.

 

[XCV330]

"Not easily accessable" means jack-shit when it comes to stealing concepts and ideas..

State case law for that, please

 

[Tuskin38]

"Not easily accessable" means jack-shit when it comes to stealing concepts and ideas.
There is a reason professional writers on this board avoid the "fancfiction"-section like hell: If they stumble upon an idea as somebody has written it down, and then use it or a similar one later in their own work, whoever wrote the original post here can sue them.

And that's how it is supposed to work: Even if you're a small, self-published writer, big-name companies shouldn't be allowed to just willy-nilly copy your work without repercussions, no matter how small or obscure you or your work is. Even though it would be really impossible for this specific poster to "prove" the writer saw exactly his thread as well.

I dunno the people who have experience with the law seem to disagree with you.

 

[Rahul]

Well yeah, the real world isn't fair: If you're alone, with a dumb lawyer, fighting a multi-million dollar company in an American court - you gonna' lose. Regardless if you're right or wrong.

 

[BurnhamAll]

Well yeah, the real world isn't fair: If you're alone, with a dumb lawyer, fighting a multi-million dollar company in an American court - you gonna' lose. Regardless if you're right or wrong.

Factually incorrect. I personally know an INDIVIDUAL who beat Disney, and an artist who successfully countersued a MAJOR entertainment company who accused him of theft.

 

[BurnhamAll]

Major corporations absolutely have an advantage in the ability to afford a lawyer. But not the law. If this guy had a real case, there'd be lawyers LINING UP to represent him pro bono. I know because i've seen it happen to people I know personally.

Heck, it happened with Alec Peters: even though he absolutely committed infringement, there was still enough leeway in the evidence to successfully defend him and reach a settlement out of court. This prospect is what caught the eye of the attorneys who agreed to represent him.

Again, if this guy had ANY case at ALL, he'd have much better lawyers than the sloppy team he's got right now.

 

[DaveyNY]

Well yeah, the real world isn't fair: If you're alone, with a dumb lawyer, fighting a multi-million dollar company in an American court - you gonna' lose. Regardless if you're right or wrong.

So basically a person should stand in the middle of a crowded banquet hall and fling chit at all the buffet tables until someone notices that it stinks, so one can feel good about oneself?

Kinda-sorta seems like a miserable way to cope with finding one's path in life.

 

[cultcross]

board avoid the "fancfiction"-section like hell: If they stumble upon an idea as somebody has written it down, and then use it or a similar one later in their own work, whoever wrote the original post here can sue them.

Ok, let's run with that. Follow the thought through. Why do we have a rule against posting original ideas in TrekLit, and the authors in turn avoid Fanfiction?
Because if they use an idea that matches one in that forum, the person claiming copyright infringement must prove access and substantial similarity. So the plaintiff would have to prove the author accessed their work in order to know about it and hence copy it. That is exactly why we have that separation in forums on TrekBBS. If we followed your rule of 'its on the internet so you can be assumed to have accessed it', that separation would be a total waste of time. Your own example demonstrates exactly the same principle we are all explaining.

 

[Rahul]

Ok, let's run with that. Follow the thought through. Why do we have a rule against posting original ideas in TrekLit, and the authors in turn avoid Fanfiction?
Because if they use an idea that matches one in that forum, the person claiming copyright infringement must prove access and substantial similarity. So the plaintiff would have to prove the author accessed their work in order to know about it and hence copy it. That is exactly why we have that separation in forums on TrekBBS. If we followed your rule of 'its on the internet so you can be assumed to have accessed it', that separation would be a total waste of time. Your own example demonstrates exactly the same principle we are all explaining.

Okay, honest question I have about that:
Say, somebody posts a very specific fanfic - like, a space-squid that has hick-ups, and after every gulp it makes an FTL jump and is now totally lost. And the heroes save this poor creature from his hick-up by scaring the crap out if it with their big ship.
And then, the next year, an episode is aired with the exact same premise: They didn't even swap out the creature, it's not even a generic space-whale, but a space-squid as well. And then you find out, one of the authors of that episode has a Trekbbs-account.

To prove "access": Does the fanfic-author has to prove the writer directly accessed this specific thread? Does Trekbbs even track that? I mean, can they conclude that he has (or has not) seen the concept, even if the writer never posted himself in the thread or put a "like" on any of the posts there?

I always thought this rule was more to avoid general influence at all - like, how when Star Trek accepted spec scripts, and they were sent some with concepts similar to what their writers were working on, they made legally-proof sure the writers never saw those spec-scripts? I thought - if that episode aired, the fanfic-writer would have had a case, purely by the writer being a Trekbbs user (and would then have to prove "similarity", but that "access" was given), and that rule is more safety mechanism to protect Trekbbs itself being involved in such cases, and writers from seeing such ideas in the first place, - because if that writer would come up with this idea completely seperately on it's own, it's more likely the stories would be more different from each other (like flatulence instead of hick-ups)? Simply from a propability perspective? Or does the fan-fic writer actually need to research the exact point in time the writer had access to this very specific thread to prove "access"?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

"Not easily accessable" means jack-shit when it comes to stealing concepts and ideas.
There is a reason professional writers on this board avoid the "fancfiction"-section like hell: If they stumble upon an idea as somebody has written it down, and then use it or a similar one later in their own work, whoever wrote the original post here can sue them.

And that's how it is supposed to work: Even if you're a small, self-published writer, big-name companies shouldn't be allowed to just willy-nilly copy your work without repercussions, no matter how small or obscure you or your work is. Even though it would be really impossible for this specific poster to "prove" the writer saw exactly his thread as well.

You've now circled back around to making the exact same argument which you made at the beginning of this most recent update to the Tardigrades saga, despite offering no new points to support your claims and despite those claims being refuted by numerous well-founded layperson arguments (shameless plug) and even several legal professionals and people who have been following this and other Trek-related legal cases from the beginning.

By your own admission you are not a lawyer, which is not required to participate in the discussion obviously, but you've also demonstrated basic but significant misunderstandings of how the law is supposed to work that are pretty fundamental to most democratic legal systems around the world, including the US. You offer no links or supporting evidence to back up those claims, yet repeat them frequently and with an absolute certainty that is undeserved. You also resort to frequently either deliberately misrepresenting or completely misunderstanding the opposing arguments being made against you, or making arguments of your own which actually make the opposite point from what you think they do.

It's getting harder and harder to defend the idea that you are arguing in good faith and with an open mind rather than stubbornly digging in and holding a position just for the sake of it until you metaphorically die on this particular hill. Defending the little guy against perceived corporate wrongdoing is a noble pursuit, but blindly assuming guilt on the part of that corporation without evidence and ignoring or misstating learned opponent's arguments that are inconvenient to yours is not so noble.

If there was any indication that this guy's case had merit beyond just basic similarities that can be arrived at by coincidence because spacefaring tardigrades were in the public consciousness at the time, you'd have more supporters for your position among even fans of the show. Some would cling to their position supporting CBS just like some of Discovery's more vocal critics cling to the position that CBS must have stolen the idea (hell, mos made an argument based on an erroneous idea of how Google searches work that not even the plaintiff is using to support his case) , but most would support the plaintiff, because most people don't want to see the little guy get ripped off without financial compensation and credit if deserved. And besides, it doesn't mean one can't still enjoy the show.

I'm not telling you that you have to drop your argument, so don't feel any pressure to do so. But I'm asking you to reevaluate your position critically and examine why you are so convinced that it's the truth without any real basis to support your claims. Because it feels like just arguing for the sake of argument at this point.

 

[Rahul]

You've now circled back around to making the exact same argument which you made at the beginning of this most recent update to the Tardigrades saga, despite offering no new points to support your claims and despite those claims being refuted by numerous well-founded layperson arguments (shameless plug) and even several legal professionals and people who have been following this and other Trek-related legal cases from the beginning.

By your own admission you are not a lawyer, which is not required to participate in the discussion obviously, but you've also demonstrated basic but significant misunderstandings of how the law is supposed to work that are pretty fundamental to most democratic legal systems around the world, including the US. You offer no links or supporting evidence to back up those claims, yet repeat them frequently and with an absolute certainty that is undeserved. You also resort to frequently either deliberately misrepresenting or completely misunderstanding the opposing arguments being made against you, or making arguments of your own which actually make the opposite point from what you think they do.

It's getting harder and harder to defend the idea that you are arguing in good faith and with an open mind rather than stubbornly digging in and holding a position just for the sake of it until you metaphorically die on this particular hill. Defending the little guy against perceived corporate wrongdoing is a noble pursuit, but blindly assuming guilt on the part of that corporation without evidence and ignoring or misstating learned opponent's arguments that are inconvenient to yours is not so noble.

If there was any indication that this guy's case had merit beyond just basic similarities that can be arrived at by coincidence because spacefaring tardigrades were in the public consciousness at the time, you'd have more supporters for your position among even fans of the show. Some would cling to their position supporting CBS just like some of Discovery's more vocal critics cling to the position that CBS must have stolen the idea (hell, mos made an argument based on an erroneous idea of how Google searches work that not even the plaintiff is using to support his case) , but most would support the plaintiff, because most people don't want to see the little guy get ripped off without financial compensation and credit if deserved. And besides, it doesn't mean one can't still enjoy the show.

I'm not telling you that you have to drop your argument, so don't feel any pressure to do so. But I'm asking you to reevaluate your position critically and examine why you are so convinced that it's the truth without any real basis to support your claims. Because it feels like just arguing for the sake of argument at this point.

You accuse me of "not offering any new information" and "misrepresenting others", and yet in the same post you mis-represent my arguments: You say I'm unequivocally convinced this guy is right and CBS wrong. I am not. My entire position is this: This guy has proven his case enough up to a point, that a critical look should be taken at CBS early development documents for the show. That's it.

This was a position many of the people arguing against me thought was actually happening - they thought the court would actually have looked at that, or that his lawyer would have been able to.

That's sadly not the case. The "discovery" is limited to him having to present the result of a personal manhunt, tracking down the one individual out of a multi-milllion dollar company that has accessed his game idea, and deliver the exact point of access through the internet - which is just virtually, completely impossible.

That is not fair. That is a task that is completely unsolvable, and used as a method to just shut off the process without ever actually looking at the case. He can't prove "access", because they made the hurdles for him personally so high that it's impossible to cross them - for anyone.

And I stand by the position I had about this case from the very beginning:
It deserves to be looked at.
And at this point, that involves looking at a few limited early CBS documents.

Would they actually look at it -and THEN conclude CBS developed the idea completely independant - I would absolutely accept this result, immediately, without reservations! I don't even like that guy. CBS would be immediately in the clear for me!

But until then, the similarities are just a little too suspicious, and shutting the whole thing down without actually looking doesn't make it look fair.

 

[Tuskin38]

This guy has proven his case enough up to a point

He really hasn't.

 

[nutshell]

I sure hope the guy suing is getting his legal work pro-bono.

It’s probably a contingency fee arrangement.

 

[MvRojo]

To prove "access": Does the fanfic-author has to prove the writer directly accessed this specific thread? Does Trekbbs even track that? I mean, can they conclude that he has (or has not) seen the concept, even if the writer never posted himself in the thread or put a "like" on any of the posts there?

TrekBBS actually does track that information, and I know other forums do as well. I'm not sure where/if/how that information is saved, but if you click on any member's profile, you'll see a portion under the user name and rank with text that says: "[Member ID] was last seen: Viewing thread It's going to court!, A moment ago"

Assuming that information is saved, that information would be discoverable.

 

[Tuskin38]

I've never used XenForo before but I know on some board software high level administrators can see user's IP Addresses.