• 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!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
jespah said:
I'm kinda baffled myself - the offer may have been made as a kind of "we're gonna cover everyone involved with Axa" blanket. I don't know. In your fact pattern, separate manufacturers are clearly separate, but when it comes to employers and former employees, it's a different story.

Still, TM is a former employee (or at least a former volunteer), but he owes Axa no loyalty whatsoever. When I did depositions regularly (and I often had corporate defendants), we did extend policy protection and, therefore, attorney representation to former employees all the time. And a lot of those former employees were lovely, loyal people. Every now and then, you'd get someone with an axe to grind. But this was years before the Internet. TM has been pretty public about his shifting loyalties or at least that he wouldn't be a guaranteed slam dunk supportive witness for the defense.

Plus W & S has bled enough money and pro bono hours on this one to last them a while. And now they're going to volunteer for more? I'm sorry, but regardless of what you feel about anyone, W & S is a business and they have got to bring in some cash (sorry, pun not intended). Ranahan is a partner which means she is expected to be a rainmaker. I know I've written this before.

There are only so many hours in a day. Shedding time on pro bono work, when you've most likely already gone way above and beyond what the firm requires and what the state requires (50 hours for California, per annum), means you are either neglecting your home life and/or health, or your financial obligations to the firm as a partner. Or you're padding the bills. I am not accusing Ms. Ranahan of the latter.

But at some point, something has got to give. They do not own a time machine.

So, where is this infinite time coming from? And for what? TM is far from being a guaranteed asset for them.

His interests differ. Period.

This is ... weird. And it makes my professional responsibility muscles itch.
Click to expand...

I can see why Erin Ranahan did it (made the offer) and in reality while it IS more Pro Bono hours per se - when you figure that she's going to be present at the Depositions anyway; in that sense she's not costing the firm any more actual money then the hours they're commited to in defending Axanar/Alec Peters Pro Bono to begin with.

It's pretty clear whomever is on their Pro Bono board didn't really look into the situation (or Alec Peters background/business history) before agreeing to take the case; and I'm sure the thought was:

"We'll get a decent settlement and look good in the media. There's no way that CBS or Paramount will want to drag this out with a new film and series and the 50th anniversary of the franchise happening in 2016..."

And actually, they guessed right on that aspect because JJ Abrams/Justin Lin actually GOT C/P to go to the settlement table; and I'm sure Alec Peters and W&S got offered a very fair settlement given the situation. What torpedoed that settlement? IMO - Alec Peters ego (the continuing donations and money he still gets hawking unlicensed Star Trek merchandise probably colored his decision too. I'm sure he STILL thinks that somehow he'll be able walk away able to keep a lot of the financial benefit he's gotten; and if asked about why Axanar remained unfinished..."It's all CBS/Paramount's fault - not mine!")

(No I'm not privy to any special info, but that has to be what happened. And the bad thing about being a lawyer is WHEN you see you DID get offered a good/reasonable settlement; BUT you can't get your client to see that; and they WANT everything they asked for in their settlement offer to the other side, OR they want their day in court to 'prove' themselves; and I sure with Alec Peters it's the situation W&S found themselves in; and they'd end up taking a WAY WORSE PR hit in public by backing out as Axanar's/Alec Peters legal representation at this point in the proceedings. I'm also pretty certain that if this case goes as expected, Erin Ranahan will be a part of a very private - and very uncomfortable for her - Partner's meeting at the W&S offices.)

We'll see.
 
Indysolo said:
Back to the script for a moment. Were there waves crashing against the firmament in it?

Neil
Click to expand...
Alas, waves did not intrude upon firmaments until a later draft, possibly post-lawsuit. I've learned that there are at least four versions after this one, most completed after the suit was filed.

The August draft is significant because it's the one lauded as the best Star Trek script ever, the one featured as "locked" and the one specifically cited in the legal complaint.
 
Noname Given said:
I can see why Erin Ranahan did it (made the offer) and in reality while it IS more Pro Bono hours per se - when you figure that she's going to be present at the Depositions anyway; in that sense she's not costing the firm any more actual money then the hours they're commited to in defending Axanar/Alec Peters Pro Bono to begin with.

It's pretty clear whomever is on their Pro Bono board didn't really look into the situation (or Alec Peters background/business history) before agreeing to take the case; and I'm sure the thought was:

"We'll get a decent settlement and look good in the media. There's no way that CBS or Paramount will want to drag this out with a new film and series and the 50th anniversary of the franchise happening in 2016..."

And actually, they guessed right on that aspect because JJ Abrams/Justin Lin actually GOT C/P to go to the settlement table; and I'm sure Alec Peters and W&S got offered a very fair settlement given the situation. What torpedoed that settlement? IMO - Alec Peters ego (the continuing donations and money he still gets hawking unlicensed Star Trek merchandise probably colored his decision too. I'm sure he STILL thinks that somehow he'll be able walk away able to keep a lot of the financial benefit he's gotten; and if asked about why Axanar remained unfinished..."It's all CBS/Paramount's fault - not mine!")

(No I'm not privy to any special info, but that has to be what happened. And the bad thing about being a lawyer is WHEN you see you DID get offered a good/reasonable settlement; BUT you can't get your client to see that; and they WANT everything they asked for in their settlement offer to the other side, OR they want their day in court to 'prove' themselves; and I sure with Alec Peters it's the situation W&S found themselves in; and they'd end up taking a WAY WORSE PR hit in public by backing out as Axanar's/Alec Peters legal representation at this point in the proceedings. I'm also pretty certain that if this case goes as expected, Erin Ranahan will be a part of a very private - and very uncomfortable for her - Partner's meeting at the W&S offices.)

We'll see.
Click to expand...
I'm told that for Winston, the case has gone way beyond pro bono to the write-off stage financially. I'm not sure how much trouble Ranahan would be in, partner-wise, given that they've done this kind of pro bono case before, Games Workshop v. Chapterhouse Studios — a Warhammer 40K copyright/trademark case that's the entire reason Alec Peters sought out Winston in the first place.

The Games Workshop case took up three years and went all the way to a court of appeals. It was precedent-setting, as this case may be, too. Peters has already dropped hints that the Ninth Circuit appeals court is already being considered "his" venue, which leads me to doubt his confidence about prevailing at this first trial, should the case go that far.

Finally, no one is seriously considering that Winston would pull out of this case at this time, regardless of how they may feel about Peters and the way the case is developing.
 
Indysolo said:
Judge Klausner ordered that, not two Star Trek directors.
Neil
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the question as to how much genuine desire CBS/P had to settle after the statements about olive-branches from camp JJ/Lin will probably never been answered. It sure seems that Alec blew and opportunity but we'll probably never know for sure whether he sabotaged it or JJ/Lin made a big boo boo and misspoke.
 
Indysolo said:
Judge Klausner ordered that, not two Star Trek directors.

Neil
Click to expand...
If you're talking the mandatory arbitration order - that's REQUIRED for any Civil case. It doesn't mean the parties will actually try and settle. I talked about this when the order was first issued. Most times these arbitrations last less then 5 minutes once the arbiter finds one side or the other doesn't want to settle; and he signs the paperwork.

I do have a feeling given Paramount's tweet after JJ Abrams comment at the STB event, I don't think it was a case a JJ Abrams mis-representing what Justin Lin did, or what he or Justin Lin were told; but either way in the end, no settlement has been reached an the case certainly has not been 'dropped' (as was mis-reported by many outlets after JJ Abrams made his comment.)
 
jespah said:
But at some point, something has got to give. They do not own a time machine.
Click to expand...

Maybe Paramount auctioned one and it is in Alec's collection.

Agree, its weird. Looks like W&S wants to shape/prepare for the testimony with advance coaching/view of the information he will submit. Why would he let them do this? Maybe he hadn't thought it through at the time of his posting.

carlosp said:
Peters has already dropped hints that the Ninth Circuit appeals court is already being considered "his" venue, which leads me to doubt his confidence about prevailing at this first trial, should the case go that far.
Click to expand...

They must really believe they have some poison pill issue larger than the finances/specific IP violations that is appealable. The only one I can think of is ownership of Trek in general having an ambiguity here or there that could get Axanar off the hook on a technicality.
 
Last edited:
I read in a description of one of W&S previous suits (which I 'think' I remember as also being pro bono) that in the settlement or won at trial the pro bono cost to them was recovered. Which has my own uneducated in these matters thoughts considering W&S' pro bono costs 'might' be on the table in the settlement.

I have learned that even the most inane things can and will be laid out on the table for settlement. As is, I'm still inclined to think, that $150K the Plaintiffs have asked for on each IP violation. On the table (at least in a settlement) as a negotiating point. Allowing, expecting, themselves to be negotiated down. Therefore (my thinking drifts to) in a sealed settlement, and 'without' winning the case for the defense, part of the package the Plaintiffs 'might' offer or agree to is part or all of that cost. Which the Plaintiffs might deem in their own big picture to have some worth as long as they get their bottom line for this litigation; that this movie cannot be made using their IP. Which sets the precedent that no 'other' can.

Because I agree with jespah that W&S is indeed a business and I do add not a friend to the defendant outside of what's in it for them. I add to that that the Plaintiffs are also a business that also pushes for what they consider the better outcome for their own business. Which may not be what 'I' consider obvious in their best business interests. What I've come to understand is that trials are a total crap shoot no matter the obvious truths or evidence, and so are Settlements.

But superior Negotiators in a settlement seem to be worth their weight in latinum bars.

Or if it goes to trial I think this case's outcome will not come down to facts but will instead hinge on how these two law firms' representatives can maneuver the presentation of them in getting the court or jury accept interpretation of these facts that serves them best within the interpretation of existing law and precedent that also serves them best.
 
Last edited:
ThankYouGeneR said:
I read in a description of one of W&S previous suits (which I 'think' I remember as also being pro bono) that in the settlement or won at trial the pro bono cost to them was recovered.
Click to expand...

I believe it is pretty common to offer the sued party their costs as a sugar coating for getting them to accept the operational part they don't want -- in this case perhaps, ban from Trek.
 
carlosp said:
Peters has already dropped hints that the Ninth Circuit appeals court is already being considered "his" venue, which leads me to doubt his confidence about prevailing at this first trial, should the case go that far.
Click to expand...

I've assumed all along this was his strategy. The Ninth Circuit is a long-shot but it's his only shot. It's a large appeals court and depending on what three-judge panel you draw, you never know. I was just reviewing a Ninth Circuit case for a client this morning where the court basically ignored the Supreme Court and three other circuit courts to rule for a plaintiff they happened to agree with. It's not inconceivable Peters gets lucky that way, but I sure wouldn't bet money on that.
 
If this was to be the case, and the main case got to trial in January coming and was lost by the defendants, when could it possibly be heard in the Ninth Circuit?
 
trynda1701 said:
If this was to be the case, and the main case got to trial in January coming and was lost by the defendants, when could it possibly be heard in the Ninth Circuit?
Click to expand...

Oh it's gonna be awhile. And I still don't think we get to a jury. I think the judge grants summary judgment to C/P and AP appeals that decision to the Ninth Circuit. Best case scenario is we're looking at another 2-3 years.
 
Professor Zoom said:
We're gonna need a bigger thread.
Click to expand...

Just to give everyone a rough idea of the timeframe when dealing with an appeal, here's how the Ninth Circuit case I was reviewing today went:

1. Lawsuit initially filed in 2012.
2. Judge grants summary judgment to the defendant in July 2013.
3. Ninth Circuit hears oral arguments on appeal in November 2015.
4. Ninth Circuit issues decision in August 2016.

So basically three years from the trial court's decision to disposal of the appeal. And that's about typical for the Ninth Circuit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top