• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rahul said:
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?
Click to expand...

I assume you mean a criminal case. In that case, the police would do an investigation and that would probably come up during questioning or at some other phase before the case would even get to trial or the person even formally charged.
 
jespah said:
  1. Civil and criminal are really different areas of the law. There's no alibi, accuser, or conviction. It's a plaintiff and proof to the contrary (it's not technically 'evidence' until entered into evidence by a court during trial, BTW -- this is yet another word in common ordinary parlance which means something different in legal practice).
  2. Standards of proof also differ. There are 3 standards: beyond a reasonable doubt (most criminal matters); preponderance of the evidence (most civil matters); and clear and convincing evidence (can be either, and it tends to be for fraud or inheritance cases or taking someone off life support. None of that applies herein).
  3. Even the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean prove beyond any doubt. Did Timothy McVeigh carry out the Oklahoma City bombing? Yes, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Could aliens have swooped in and done the deed themselves? Highly unlikely -- and immaterial, as the tiny nugget of doubt such a theory might engender isn't enough to wash away the proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
  4. For fans who will not be satisfied unless CBS is guilty, guilty, guilty, they're not going to care about proof standards. And there is no need to prove perfection -- and I'm talking about plaintiff! As for the defense, they have NO burden of proof. The burden won't shift unless there's a counterclaim (there isn't one) or the plaintiff raises enough of a concern that something could really be there (they haven't hit that threshold).
  5. The likelihood of there being a trial is virtually nil. That's not this case in particular; it's that trials are rare. This case ending before a trial is way more of a certainty than whether your local grocery store will have fennel in stock this week. Anyone who sees that as sinister might want to offer up their entire salary for the courts to hire more judges, bailiffs, and court reporters, and build more courtrooms. Pushes to end cases early tend to (at least in part) be resource-driven.
  6. However, they are also driven by a push to get people to settle their differences privately, rather than involve the court system. Hence the rise of mediation and arbitration.
  7. Oh, and surprise last-minute proof is cinematic/television garbage. If something last-minute came in, the other side would, at minimum, have an idea it was being sought (e. g. we just found a witness in the jungles of Brazil!). A case would never go forward; it would be recessed for quite a while, to give the other side a chance to prepare. Gotcha games don't exist in the real world of the law.
The armchair lawyers who told Mr. Abdin he had a case were talking out of their nether regions. They had no knowledge, no experience, and no training. The only dog they have in this particular hunt is not liking Discovery, and wishing failure upon it (such an exceptionally bizarre and self-defeating thing for people who claim to love Trek to do).

The side by side images for the characters are utterly meaningless and, frankly, could be seen as prejudging when it comes to the casting of Sonequa Martin-Green. Not all African-Americans look alike -- but you wouldn't know that from what the claim is alleging. Putting a medical person in white is standard; it's practically along the lines of scènes a faire. The only slight leg plaintiff has to stand on is the tardigrade, a real creature which cannot be copyrighted. The usage differs, and the fact that real tardigrades can survive in deep space means associating them with space was a more or less inevitable fiction idea.

Plaintiff's only hope is to show access to his idea, at the right time, and copying thereof. He's shown neither. Defense doesn't have to produce show development documents unless they're subpoenaed. If they haven't been, then defense doesn't have to do squadoo.

And furthermore, yes, there are going to be some people who will call foul. They will call foul no matter what. Nothing will satisfy them beyond the utter destruction of Discovery (again, I find such a wish bizarre). If they are so hellbent on seeing what they feel would be justice served, then I suggest they pool their monies and buy the plaintiff the services of lawyers who know WTF they are doing.
Click to expand...

IMO /Tread. :)

[Of course multiple people have been saying essentially the same thing as Jespah did above for a number of pages; but certain people just don't want to understand because they believe somehow a court should assume one side's claim is automatically valid because a Lawyer agreed to file a claim. :rommie: Just because a Lawyer agrees to file, it DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW said claim is valid. Plus the fact the 'Lawyer' this Plaintiff found is not a good one, based on his filing record in this case. Judges DON'T LIKE to have to call a Pleading deficient; but so far, every Pleading from the Plaintiffs lawyer has been called so by the Judge.]
 
Noname Given said:
IMO /Tread. :)

[Of course multiple people have been saying essentially the same thing as Jespah did above for a number of pages; but certain people just don't want to understand because they believe somehow a court should assume one side's claim is automatically valid because a Lawyer agreed to file a claim. :rommie: Just because a Lawyer agrees to file, it DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW said claim is valid. Plus the fact the 'Lawyer' this Plaintiff found is not a good one, based on his filing record in this case. Judges DON'T LIKE to have to call a Pleading deficient; but so far, every Pleading from the Plaintiffs lawyer has been called so by the Judge.]
Click to expand...

The biggest advantage of HAVING a good lawyer is having someone on your side who KNOWS THE LAW.

That said, even without a lawyer, or with a bad one, a judge isn't going to summarily find in favor of the one with the better lawyer. If CBS was clearly in the wrong-- bad lawyer or not, poor presentation or not-- the judge would find in his favor. I've seen it happen firsthand. Judges are, as they should be, very fair, and understand the plight of "the little guy." They are often more helpful and supportive of someone without a financial advantage. That's probably why this guy is getting so many "second chances."

The judge is likely trying to give this guy, because he's just an individual up against a big corporation, every chance to make his case.

Again, i've seen this happen first hand in multiple courts and cases, from family court to criminal court, even to IP and infringement cases. No, I'm not a lawyer, but I work in a role where I am privy to cases all the time.
 
BurnhamAll said:
Again, i've seen this happen first hand in multiple courts and cases, from family court to criminal court, even to IP and infringement cases. No, I'm not a lawyer, but I work in a role where I am privy to cases all the time.
Click to expand...
^^^
Yep - I work in such a role as well.

And trust me, sometimes you even have Judges (and Clerks) who wonder HOW some of these lawyers (and yes, you see good, lawyers, bad lawyers, and absolutely clueless/dumb lawyers in courtrooms on a daily basis) manage to maintain a practice. ;)
 
FhwKFwY.jpg
 
Noname Given said:
^^^
Yep - I work in such a role as well.

And trust me, sometimes you even have Judges (and Clerks) who wonder HOW some of these lawyers (and yes, you see good, lawyers, bad lawyers, and absolutely clueless/dumb lawyers in courtrooms on a daily basis) manage to maintain a practice. ;)
Click to expand...

I once saw a judge adjourn a case for a week because the guy was representing himself and he clearly needed some extra time. Even though he didn't ask for it, the judge adjourned and had a bailiff direct him to free legal services, and even advised him of some rights he had that he was not aware of. Judges are rarely the iron-fisted tyrants you see on TV and in movies. End of the day their job is to give everyone a fair shake, and they know when someone is operating from an unfair disadvantage and do what they can to even things out when they can.
 
BurnhamAll said:
I once saw a judge adjourn a case for a week because the guy was representing himself and he clearly needed some extra time. Even though he didn't ask for it, the judge adjourned and had a bailiff direct him to free legal services, and even advised him of some rights he had that he was not aware of. Judges are rarely the iron-fisted tyrants you see on TV and in movies. End of the day their job is to give everyone a fair shake, and they know when someone is operating from an unfair disadvantage and do what they can to even things out when they can.
Click to expand...
Yep. More often than not, judges are bending over backwards to give pro per plaintiffs as many chances as needed to do these right.
 
nutshell said:
Yep. More often than not, judges are bending over backwards to give pro per plaintiffs as many chances as needed to do these right.
Click to expand...

The other misconception is that if an individual with a bad lawyer or no lawyer doesn't object, that the other side gets away with something. But i've seen many times a judge shut down a lawyer's tactic without any objection from the other side because it wasn't fair.

If CBS is doing something unfair or wrong, they'll be called out for it by the court whether this guy has a good lawyer or not. Judges don't like lawyers taking advantage of the system and any advantage their money might give them.

The system is as fair as it can be.
 
Last edited:
Without any evidence presented in the video, Abdin claimed his Tardigrades game was “the top adventure game of all time before CBS/Netflix were involved,” even though it has never been released in any playable form.

Well, he seems rational.

Can President Trump sue Abdin for stealing his hype game?
 
I have to admit I can't wrap my head around this. What's the allegation being made? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gibraltar
Starship Reykjavík – Domum Soli
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
11K
Gibraltar
Gibraltar
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top