Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

[KennyB]

Which is a completely ridiculous burden to put on the plaintiff anyway. If it was publicly accessible, it was publicly accessible. Period.

If somebody broke into my house, stole a statue, and the next day my neighbour had the exact same statue in his house - the Police wouldn't ask me to prove how my neighbour could have accessed my property and demand I present the crowbar he used myself! They would take a fucking look at the statue, see if it has the same marks, and if so, ask the guy to produce a receipt from where he got it.

The fact that CBS has been absolutely shielded from providing even the smallest hint of how they came up with the sparkling FTL-Tardigrade is the thing that makes me suspicious. Especially since such a design document should be an absolute cake-walk to produce if they truly developed and iterated the idea themselves. That instead the plaintiff has to provide the complete Internet search history of every employee of a multi-million dollar company is some grade A bullshit.

Innocent till PROVEN guilty. How would you know your neighbor has the statue? Investigations, evidence, search warrants......PROOF. You could not just scream your neighbor stole your statue and have them bust down his door. Even if you KNOW he did, you have to provide evidence.

 

[Rahul]

You don't think they could come up with that if asked? They could whip one up in ten minutes. In a world of seven billion people, similar ideas come up all the time. When the similarities between his product and Discovery are so vague, why shouldn't he have to provide some kind of proof that CBS stole his idea? He is the plaintiff, that is his responsibility under the law.

That right there is the issue!
Plaintiff has asked them, they managed to completely weazel out of it, and instead the court ordered Abedin to produce this completely ridiculous "access" one of a million people on the company might had.

The fact that their million dollar defense is so keen on trying everything to avoid them doing that, is why believe this case is not as meritless as people claim.


Edit:

Innocent till PROVEN guilty. How would you know your neighbor has the statue? Investigations, evidence, search warrants......PROOF. You could not just scream your neighbor stole your statue and have them bust down his door. Even if you KNOW he did, you have to provide evidence.

A fucking photo of the statue through his window would be sufficient. That's far enough "proof" to actually start looking into weather it's the same or not. Anything more is ridiculous.

If they then find out it actually isn't the same statue, and the guy has a receipt for it - fine! Case closed.

That the statue is right there, out in the open, and they get away with no one (neither police nor plaintiff) even allowed to take a closer look on it, is the thing that's scandalous.

 

[BillJ]

Plaintiff has asked them, they managed to completely weazel out of it, and instead the court ordered Abedin to produce this completely ridiculous "access" one of a million people on the company might had.

Or the plaintiff hasn't provided enough for the court to make CBS turn over records? If you steal something from me, I have to have something more than my word for them to bust down your door in search of it.

Then there's the silliness of things like the uniforms being blue.

 

[KennyB]

Or the plaintiff hasn't provided enough for the court to make CBS turn over records? If you steal something from me, I have to have something more than my word for them to bust down your door in search of it.

Then there's the silliness of things like the uniforms being blue.

The plaintiff's lawyer keeps tripping over his own feet as well..........that never helps.

 

[Rahul]

Or the plaintiff hasn't provided enough for the court to make CBS turn over records? If you steal something from me, I have to have something more than my word for them to bust down your door in search of it.

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.

The similarities are laughably obvious at first glance. Some are a stretch (most of the generic SF-tropes listed, like the "blue uniforms"), but some are so ridiculous specific it's actually kinda' comical at this point.

No one thinks CBS should be treated as if they were guilty (okay... some weird conspirac theorists do...). But at this point, this shit really deserves to be looked at. It isn't - the problem is that the whole "investigation" is such a sham:
We're not outright dismissing the case, but no one takes a look at it - e.g. you can see the statue through the window, but you have to prove it is "your" statue yourself, and that it really was him that stole it, but you aren't allowed to take a look at the statue up close, or his apartment, and neither do we)

 

[Rahul]

Really - at this point at least an impartial side should have been allowed to take a look at a design document from CBS. And his lawyer asked for that. They dismissed this - that afterwards his lawyer started to throw shit at the wall is understandable. There is simply nothing else left he could do.

 

[Campe]

That right there is the issue!
Plaintiff has asked them, they managed to completely weazel out of it, and instead the court ordered Abedin to produce this completely ridiculous "access" one of a million people on the company might had.

The fact that their million dollar defense is so keen on trying everything to avoid them doing that, is why believe this case is not as meritless as people claim.

The definition of Preponderance of the Evidence is as follows:

the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury)to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective

At this point in this case, both sides are still building their cases and a big part of this is also from the concept of burden of proof:

Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdiction, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.

"The plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof."

Hmmm... to me, that would indicate that it is up to Anais and his attorney to do so. He has the right to subpoena records. He has the right to ask for them in the discovery from CBS in order to look through the records. Yes, its a David vs. Goliath situation. And we all love a good underdog story, but here's the thing: Anais chose to sue CBS. No one made him. But, he and his attorney need to be able to do the work if he wants to continue. CBS isn't going to simply say "there are some similarities, sure, but not enough really to be absolutely certain, and we don't know whether or not someone accessed his game so, sure, let's fund his game!"

The guy is merely after two things: his moment in the sun and some money. Nothing was stopping him from making this game before.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Which is a completely ridiculous burden to put on the plaintiff anyway. If it was publicly accessible, it was publicly accessible. Period.

If somebody broke into my house, stole a statue, and the next day my neighbour had the exact same statue in his house - the Police wouldn't ask me to prove how my neighbour could have accessed my property and demand I present the crowbar he used myself! They would take a fucking look at the statue, see if it has the same marks, and if so, ask the guy to produce a receipt from where he got it.

1. They'd have to prove it was the exact same statue and not just a similar-looking one.
2. If they couldn't tell for sure if it was the exact same statue or not (analysis inconclusive), then SOMEONE would need to prove how your neighbor might have broken into your house to steal the statue. Maybe you don't need to present the crowbar or other evidence of a break-in, but someone does.

To recap:

• Proof that it is the exact same statue, even if there is no proof that he broke into your house = He can be arrested for having your stolen statue.
• No positive proof one way or the other that it is the exact same statue or not, but proof that he did break into your home the day the statue disappeared = Enough circumstantial evidence to arrest him.
• No positive proof one way or the other that it is the exact same statue or not, and no proof that he might have broken into your home the day the statue disappeared = NOT enough circumstantial evidence to arrest him, because it's possible that he just bought a very similar statue.

A similar situation applies here. Abdin needs to prove the idea was stolen -- and NOT simply a similar idea that CBS developed on their own.

• If Abdin can prove the two ideas are far too similar to be a coincidence = Abdin can prevail because CBS would be in possession of the stolen idea.
• If Abdin can't positively prove one way or the other the two ideas are too similar to be a coincidence or not, BUT he can prove that CBS broke into his website and/or had someone on Abdin's development team prior to CBS presenting their ideas = Abdin can prevail because there would be enough circumstantial evidence that CBS stole his idea.
• If Abdin can't positively prove one way or the other the two ideas are too similar to be a coincidence or not, AND he cannot prove that CBS broke into his website and/or had someone on Abdin's development team prior to CBS presenting their ideas = Abdin likely would not prevail because there would not be enough circumstantial evidence that CBS stole his idea.

Without any positive evidence of an actual theft or evidence that the two ideas are too similar for coincidence, it could be said that CBS might have just come up with a similar (but different enough) on their own.

 

[Rahul]

This right there is the fucking problem:

He has the right to subpoena records. He has the right to ask for them in the discovery from CBS in order to look through the records.

Because at this point he ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAVE that right!

And yet - he doesn't! He is not allowed to subpoena things BEFORE he has produced the evidence his subpoena is meant to produce.

They're just using ridiculous reasonings in the part before that (technicalities of "proving of access" - even though it was widely accessable through steam) to deny him that right. THAT is the main issue, that alone!

 

[Rahul]

1. They'd have to prove it was the exact same statue and not just a similar-looking one.
2. If they couldn't tell for sure if it was the exact same statue or not (analysis inconclusive), then SOMEONE would need to prove how your neighbor might have broken into your house to steal the statue. Maybe you don't need to present the crowbar or other evidence of a break-in, but someone does.

To recap:

• Proof that it is the exact same statue, even if there is no proof that he broke into your house = He can be arrested for having your stolen statue.
• No positive proof one way or the other that it is the exact same statue or not, but proof that he did break into your home the day the statue disappeared = Enough circumstantial evidence to arrest him.
• No positive proof one way or the other that it is the exact same statue or not, and no proof that he might have broken into your home the day the statue disappeared = NOT enough circumstantial evidence to arrest him, because it's possible that he just bought a very similar statue.

A similar situation applies here. Abdin needs to prove the idea was stolen -- and NOT simply a similar idea that CBS developed on their own.

• If Abdin can prove the two ideas are far too similar to be a coincidence = Abdin can prevail because CBS would be in possession of the stolen idea.
• If Abdin can't positively prove one way or the other the two ideas are too similar to be a coincidence or not, BUT he can prove that CBS broke into his website and/or had someone on Abdin's development team prior to CBS presenting their ideas = Abdin can prevail because there would be enough circumstantial evidence that CBS stole his idea.
• If Abdin can't positively prove one way or the other the two ideas are too similar to be a coincidence or not, AND he cannot prove that CBS broke into his website and/or had someone on Abdin's development team prior to CBS presenting their ideas = Abdin likely would not prevail because there would not be enough circumstantial evidence that CBS stole his idea.

Without any positive evidence of an actual theft or evidence that the two ideas are too similar for coincidence, it could be said that CBS might have just come up with a similar (but different enough) on their own.

PS: Nobody wants to fuckin' arrest CBS.

To stay with the example:
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.

That this common sense part isn't allowed to happen is the problem.

 

[Campe]

This right there is the fucking problem:

Because at this point he ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAVE that right!

And yet - he doesn't! He is not allowed to subpoena things BEFORE he has produced the evidence his subpoena is meant to produce.

They're just using ridiculous reasonings in the part before that (technicalities of "proving of access" - even though it was widely accessable through steam) to deny him that right. THAT is the main issue, that alone!

I'm sorry, I haven't been following this all that closely and have likely missed some things. Please provide evidence that he does not have the right, because that's a pretty big accusation.

 

[Rahul]

I'm sorry, I haven't been following this all that closely and have likely missed some things. Please provide evidence that he does not have the right, because that's a pretty big accusation.

Read the threat.
NONE of his motions are allowed to proceed until he has provided the STEAM access. Everything else is on hold.
That's the whole fucking issue.

 

[Campe]

Read the threat.
NONE of his motions are allowed to proceed until he has provided the STEAM access. Everything else is on hold.
That's the whole fucking issue.

First, calm down.
Second, what threat? I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Understand that not everyone has the same level of knowledge or passion about this than you do.
Third, if all of that is true that means he subpoenas the records from STEAM. Subpoena the access logs through CBS' IP. This is discovery. Not motion practice. I would imagine that limited discovery is opened up at this time for him to be able to allow him the space to support his claim. If he can prove from the user logs that someone from CBS accessed it, there you go, the case can continue. If he or his attorney can't do that? Yes, it is well within the right of the court to stop frivolous proceedings.

 

[Rahul]

First, calm down.
Second, what threat? I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Understand that not everyone has the same level of knowledge or passion about this than you do.
Third, if all of that is true that means he subpoenas the records from STEAM. Subpoena the access logs through CBS' IP. This is discovery. Not motion practice. I would imagine that limited discovery is opened up at this time for him to be able to allow him the space to support his claim. If he can prove from the user logs that someone from CBS accessed it, there you go, the case can continue. If he or his attorney can't do that? Yes, it is well within the right of the court to stop frivolous proceedings.

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, feels like fighting windmills....

Sorry!


I actually went back. Here are the relevant bits:

On AxaMonitor: A federal judge challenges game developer Anas Abdin to show proof Star Trek: Discovery creators had seen his Tardigrades game before developing the TV series. Also, filing deadlines were set for CBS' motion to dismiss the copyright infringement lawsuit. Read more »

Most of what you're suggesting is outside the very limited scope of discovery permitted in the judge's order, which is restricted ONLY to the question of whether any of DSC's creators accessed or voted on Abdin's game proposal on Steam back in 2015.

To that end, the ONLY person they've named so far (and, remember, they still have nine weeks of discovery left to find more) doesn't appear to have been working for DSC at the time she would've needed to in order to have influenced the key aspects of the show that were already in place by the time Bryan Fuller left, a month before she joined the writing staff.

The more evidence I'm digging up, the less compelling Abdin's lawyers' attempt to demonstrate access is becoming. Note, for example, that the named DSC writer simply couldn't have been aware of the Steam Greenlight voting on Tardigrades because that was concluded in August 2015, and she didn't join Steam until FIVE MONTHS LATER, in January 2016.

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 claims they accidently created the exact same idea at the same time on their own, which is suspicious, but can't to be proven to be 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 (forcing him to prove his neighbour was the one that stole the statue, while dismissing the statue in his room as evidence).

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. Because 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 else 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.

That's the only issue I have with this case: At this point, at least a third impartial party should have been allowed to take a look at early FTL-Tardigrade drafts from CBS.

 

[DaveyNY]

It's pretty obvious that you've already assumed that CBS is guilty, so how are all your arguments fair?

There is no preponderance of evidence that shows that anybody working on DISCOVERY even knew Abdin existed, before he contacted CBS and made his claims.
(and yes, his lawyer eventually got the discovery materials asked for to try and prove this)

After contacting CBS several times on his own (the last of which HE started making demands), he was informed by the CBS lawyer that there would be no further answers forthcoming.

Then Abdin started putting his tale of woe on the internet and drew the attention of a few Discovery Haters who began to egg him on to go to court.
He unwisely listened to the 'internetz lawyers' and began consulting with REAL Lawyers as to what he should do.
According to his own story, he had to go through several Law Firms before he found one that would take his case. (and the one he hired, apparently had absolutely no experience with copyright law)

That right there should have been his first really big clue as to how this would probably turn out.

 

[drt]

Abdin’s counsel has been woefully inadequate, but his case also reeks of dishonesty and is pretty much a textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[DaveyNY]

BTW: it's not Abdin's lawyer doing "publicity stunts", it's Abdin himself making false and misleading Yt videos on his own.
I'd be willing to bet that even his inexperienced lawyer is NOT telling him to do that.

Also, I just want to point out that the Judge in this case, has practically bent over backwards since the beginning to give Abdin a fair chance to prove his case.

Normally, after one or two egregious filing errors by a lawyer, a Judge would dismiss the case outright.

This Judge has let Abdin's lawyers refile more than a few times for obvious clerical and completely wrong statement errors.

So going on and on about how seemingly unfair this case has been, is just a way to blow smoke up the arse of anybody who has seen the writing on the wall since the start.

 

[Ovation]

The fact that CBS has been absolutely shielded from providing even the smallest hint of how they came up with the sparkling FTL-Tardigrade is the thing that makes me suspicious.

You mean the fact the law sustains the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" and that ANY lawyer will advise a client (corporate or individual) to NEVER volunteer unsolicited information in a court case--precisely because the burden of proof is almost NEVER on the defendant? That's what makes you suspicious? Well...tough. If you were the defendant, you'd be screaming bloody murder if you were not allowed to behave EXACTLY as CBS, on advice of its counsel, is behaving.

 

[Rahul]

You mean the fact the law sustains the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" and that ANY lawyer will advise a client (corporate or individual) to NEVER volunteer unsolicited information in a court case--precisely because the burden of proof is almost NEVER on the defendant? That's what makes you suspicious? Well...tough. If you were the defendant, you'd be screaming bloody murder if you were not allowed to behave EXACTLY as CBS, on advice of its counsel, is behaving.

"Innocent" doesn't mean "above the law" or "excempt from being even investigated".
That's the key difference.

Saying "CBS is guilty" at this point would be jumping to conclusions. But the "CBS is innocent"-crowd does too. Fact is - it's shady as fuck that there isn't even a neutral investigation.

 

[DaveyNY]

"Innocent" doesn't mean "above the law and excempt from being even investigated".
That's the key difference.
Saying "CBS is guilty" at this point would be jumping to conclusions. But the "CBS is innocent"-crowd does too. Fact is - it's shady as fuck that there isn't even a neutral investigation.

Please, point out something in this case that has prevented Abdin's lawyers from following established court procedures and stopped them from investigating CBS in the manner prescribed by the Judge.

The best I can see one could come up with at this point, is the CBS lawyers stalling for a time before actually surrendering the info asked for during the discovery period.
(which BTW, good or bad, is a well established defense mechanism used daily by lawyers throughout the USA)

There's nothing else apparent here that has indicated in any way that CBS is "exempt or above the law" in the courts eyes.
(or any reasonable persons for that matter)


As for your "neutral investigation" comment...
Are you even aware of how silly that statement is with an "Innocent Till Proven Guilty" system?

A "Neutral Investigation" would inherently start out with the logical premise that the defendant IS guilty, otherwise there'd be no reason to investigate to begin with.
How is that fair?