Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

[Rahul]

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.

Well, that would IMO be what I think a fair discovery process should look like: His lawyer asking CBS to give out the name of the guy who came up (or "came up") with the idea of a big FTL Tardigrade on DIS - and then he could check wether that guy had access via Steam or Youtube to the game or not.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well, that would IMO be what I think a fair "discovery" process should look like: His lawyer asking CBS to give out the name of the guy who came up (or "came up") with the idea of a big Tardigrade on DIS - and then the could check wether that guy had access via Steam or Youtube to the game or not.

Again, the man-szied tardigrade idea existed before he was part of the spore drive.

 

[Rahul]

Again, the man-szied tardigrade idea existed before he was part of the spore drive.

They SAY so. In a non-binding interview. If they could prove this, the case would be over for me.
So far, no one has asked them to underpin this with actual proof (like, say, an early development document).
That would be really easy for CBS to show. The court just has made sure they never had to show it.

 

[Tuskin38]

They SAY so. In a non binding interview. If they could prove this, the case would be over for me.
So far, no one has asked them to underpin this with actual proof (like, say, an early development document).
That would be really easy for CBS to show. The court just has made sure they never had to show it.

They'll show it when they're asked. They have no need to if it isn't challenged.

 

[Rahul]

They'll show it when they're asked. They have no need to if it isn't challenged.

I know. But the process is just rigged in a way they don't have to show it, ever.
Would they release it (or any other early concepts), or even only hand it over to the court, I would be immediately won over and on their side.

That they're fighting tooth and nail to not having to show this at all is what makes me suspicious, and believe their original concept might be very close to the game.

CBS could very easily fight off all this bad press by simply showing an early concept art. If it's actually "their" concept.

 

[Tuskin38]

But the process is just rigged

No it isn't.

 

[Succubint]

A year or two back, on another forum someone who worked on the show talked about the original concept of the tardigrade. He was going to be a full fledged member of the crew. They even made a life-sized puppet of him. But ran into problems in the initial shooting. So they reworked the idea. I am confident that they have plenty of documented material: early scripts, early designs, even actual prop work and footage to prove their side of this argument. However, they don't have to produce any of this until the court asks them to.

The onus is on the plaintiff to prove his claim.

 

[Rahul]

A year or two back, on another forum someone who worked on the show talked about the original concept of the tardigrade. He was going to be a full fledged member of the crew. They even made a life-sized puppet of him. But ran into problems in the initial shooting. So they reworked the idea. I am confident that they have plenty of documented material: early scripts, early designs, even actual prop work and footage to prove their side of this argument. However, they don't have to produce any of this until the court asks them to.

The onus is on the plaintiff to prove his claim.

Again: ANY of this material would completely exonorate CBS from all credible allegations!

It's the fact that they released none these materials that's so suspicious. I'd love to see some of that concept art! At least the court should. And damn, would I be on their side after that.

I just don't understand why CBS hasn't publicised any of that early concept art of the Tardigrade at all. Concept art is very popular in fandom, and it would immediately shut up bad press about the case and people like me.

 

[Tuskin38]

It's the fact that they released none these materials that's so suspicious.

I don't see how that's suspicious.

From what others have said in this thread, this sounds like it's completely normal.

 

[BillJ]

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

I wonder if Alec Peters is making his glorious return to legal work?!

 

[Ovation]

Again: ANY of this material would completely exonorate CBS from all credible allegations!

It's the fact that they released none these materials that's so suspicious. I'd love to see some of that concept art! At least the court should. And damn, would I be on their side after that.

I just don't understand why CBS hasn't publicised any of that early concept art of the Tardigrade at all. Concept art is very popular in fandom, and it would immediately shut up bad press about the case and people like me.

It isn’t up to CBS to volunteer unsolicited information. It’s up to the plaintiff to convince the court to ask CBS to do so. If the plaintiff makes a compelling argument, the court will issue its ruling and CBS will have to comply or face consequences.

It’s not rocket science. However, simply lodging a complaint is not sufficient to make a compelling argument. Moreover, the plaintiff does not seem to have finished making his argument—why not wait until the court rules on the plaintiff’s motions before concluding CBS is refusing to “play fair”?

 

[Rahul]

I wonder if Alec Peters is making his glorious return to legal work?!

Next up: Alec Peters returns to directing, helms ST4 for Paramount, depicting the Klingon-Federation war in the Kelvin timeline.

 

[urbandefault]

Well, that would IMO be what I think a fair discovery process should look like: His lawyer asking CBS to give out the name of the guy who came up (or "came up") with the idea of a big FTL Tardigrade on DIS - and then he could check wether that guy had access via Steam or Youtube to the game or not.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it that's exactly how the discovery process works.

If you haven't already, you should read the entirety of the original CBS/P vs Axanar thread. There is a lot of legal gobbledygook explained and mucho education to be had. You'll come out the other side with more understanding of the process of civil litigation and IP law.

But if you don't want to do that, .

 

[fireproof78]

Again: ANY of this material would completely exonorate CBS from all credible allegations!

It's the fact that they released none these materials that's so suspicious. I'd love to see some of that concept art! At least the court should. And damn, would I be on their side after that.

I just don't understand why CBS hasn't publicised any of that early concept art of the Tardigrade at all. Concept art is very popular in fandom, and it would immediately shut up bad press about the case and people like me.

Yes, but here's the thing. It hasn't been asked of them and they are under no obligation to reveal trade secrets of how their shows are produced. Because, the broad sweeping request of "Hey, prove to use you didn't rip this guy off" is too broad for them to just unveil everything about Discovery.

It's not a rigged system. They are doing what is asked and no more-which is how these cases work.

 

[cultcross]

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?

The standard of proof in the civil court is on the preponderance of the evidence, which essentially means "more likely than not". So if you showed that this person regularly accessed the FanFiction forum, posting in threads, liking posts, generally taking part, you'd probably have a strong case that they had access to the allegedly infringed idea. The court may be convinced by that. Merely being active on TrekBBS would be evidence, but much weaker. It merely being on the internet is no evidence at all.

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.

Except he hasn't, that's the point. He hasn't proven the first hurdle yet, that CBS had access to the work he alleges they infringed.

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.

Repeating that does not make it true. We've just been talking about how you might evidence, say, Christopher L Bennett came across your story idea on TrekBBS. If you want to show writers for Discovery came across your idea on Wherevertheguckhepostedit.com, investigate that.

And I stand by the position I had about this case from the very beginning:
It deserves to be looked at.

It is being looked at

 

[nutshell]

Well, that would IMO be what I think a fair discovery process should look like: His lawyer asking CBS to give out the name of the guy who came up (or "came up") with the idea of a big FTL Tardigrade on DIS - and then he could check wether that guy had access via Steam or Youtube to the game or not.

The thing is the case cannot even get to discovery because the complaint (and the amended complaints) have been so flawed and lacking. Again, plaintiff is having trouble getting out of the starting blocks.

 

[jespah]

Defense is under zero obligation to do plaintiff's work for him.

True story: I have taken, oh my God, hundreds of depositions. "What is your name?" "Do you recall the ___?" etc etc you get the idea. Could do 'em in my sleep and yeah, sadly, I would dream about conducting depositions. Thank God I'm retired from all that. Because if I was still doing it, by now I would have followed up "What is your name?" with "What is your quest?" at least once.

I worked for defense (big insurance company, yo'). This was mainly trips and falls and car accidents, but I also handled construction and product liability work (mah specialty).

So I would produce a witness for deposing, too. You get time to prep your witness, of course. No matter who it was, no matter how sophisticated they were, or how many times they had been in court or whatever, I always gave them the following instruction (always):

Don't volunteer any information.

And then I would offer an example. I will offer one now.

Let's say it's a car accident. And the question is: Were you driving?

There are three possible answers to this question and there are no more:

1. Yes
2. No
3. I can't remember

And... that's it. The answer of "Yes, and it was a tan Chevy Malibu." is not the right answer. Even if it's 100% truthful!

If the other side wants that information, then they can ask for it. And then yes, provide it! Of course, tell the truth.

But,

and here comes another thing I always would tell witnesses --

are you ready?

I would say:

Don't do the other side's job for them.

If plaintiff wants such information, then they are the ones under obligation to request it in discovery or move for it in motion practice. Defense is under zero obligation to provide anything until required to do so by court order and/or subpoena. Defense's sole additional obligation is to not deliberately destroy anything which could be used as proof in the extant case. However, if defense has a standard purging/archiving policy for their records, and suit is brought after the proof has been purged in the usual course of business (and not for the specific purpose of obstructing justice, natch), then that's just life in the big city. Defense is also under zero obligation to re-create the purged stuff (again, assuming the documentation is gone due to standard housekeeping procedures and not a deliberate act to weasel out of discovery).

There's nothing rigged about that, and there's nothing unfair about it. It's how discovery works. It's how our justice system works (both civil and criminal, BTW).

If plaintiff really should have asked if the witness was driving a tan Chevy Malibu, as opposed to a little red Corvette, and they failed to do so, then defense is under no obligation to swoop in and save plaintiff from himself. CBS doesn't have any obligation to put out a hand to keep plaintiff's lawyers from tripping over their own (I'll be good and say a nice word) ties.

One side in a lawsuit is not responsible for fixing and cleaning up the other side's messes.

 

[Tosk]

I'm just glad someone who actually knows what they're talking about articulated what I was thinking on that point.

 

[Noname Given]

Again: ANY of this material would completely exonorate CBS from all credible allegations!

It's the fact that they released none these materials that's so suspicious. I'd love to see some of that concept art! At least the court should. And damn, would I be on their side after that.

I just don't understand why CBS hasn't publicised any of that early concept art of the Tardigrade at all. Concept art is very popular in fandom, and it would immediately shut up bad press about the case and people like me.

There's nothing suspicious about it AS the Plaintiff has YET to provide any HARD evidence. CBS so far has no need to defend itself from a so far COMPLETELY UNPROVEN BY HARD EVIDENCE allegation.

If the Plaintiff actually presents hard evidence - and the case moves forward, THEN CBS will have to provide evidence in their defense. But at this point in time, there's zero need as the Plaintiff hasn't provided any EVIDENCE anyone from CBS even knew the game existed prior to the Plaintiff contacting them and then filing his first complaint.

 

[Rahul]

Don't volunteer any information.

One side in a lawsuit is not responsible for fixing and cleaning up the other side's messes.

Oh, I get what CBS is doing: The clever thing. They're doing the thing you should do in a court. In fact, they're doing it so good that I fully expect them to win even if they totally took the FTL-Tardigrade idea from the guy.

I'm just wondering: If you are accused of a crime, and you have a perfect alibi: When is the time to actually present that evidence to a court? I thought the "discovery"-phase would be the time. If they had an early document that showed the development of their Tardigrade idea - or even a concept paper from when before the guy even published his trailer - I thought the discovery--phase would be the time to present that. I thought offering "surpise evidence" that clears everything up later in the game was more of a movies thing?

Because the way it looks like - it "looks" like, NOT is "is" - is that they don't have anything like that, and if they were ever forced to give out early docs, they would look suspiciously close to that guy's game. Thus they are playing the "court game". Not offering any exonorating material - just banking on the other guy making rookie mistakes on technicalities or being presented with hurdles that are impossible to overcome.

And yeah, they gonna' win with it. But it doesn't really help the public perception that, yes, they totally got the idea from this guy. They just were more clever in court.