And is probably just as filmable.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
@ Maurice / 4762:
Thanks for the pictures. Pictures are always great!
But I have read the small printed stuff today, yeah!
So those lawyers are interested? Well, I think they have great chances.What about this strategy: I mean Star Trek is more than just a tv show. It's an organism. Like we are. Or plants. Or children. And just like a child can be taken from abusive parents the court can say "Star Trek needs better parents", no?
Hhhhm, probably not.
Thanks for the pictures. Pictures are always great!
But I have read the small printed stuff today, yeah!
So those lawyers are interested? Well, I think they have great chances.What about this strategy: I mean Star Trek is more than just a tv show. It's an organism. Like we are. Or plants. Or children. And just like a child can be taken from abusive parents the court can say "Star Trek needs better parents", no?
Hhhhm, probably not.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That CBS has been abusive to Star Trek? I don't see how. Just because they've made a couple of movies that fans were divided on doesn't mean that it's abusive. To say so is silly. If the courts could 'take' an IP from a studio for being 'abusive' to it, then Marvel would have taken the movie license to Fantastic 4 back by now because they genuinely weren't good. That's not the case with the new movies.
Not sure how to edit a post. But I know that Paramount have the movie license. I just forgot while writing the post.
Well, Alecx wrote that he met lawyers and that they would be eager to defend him. I was just wondering what those eager lawyers might use as a defense.
And yes, I agree that my idea might not work. Maybe there was a little tongue in cheek in my post.
The edit button is on the bottom of your field (at least for me using backwardy desktop pc).
And yes, I agree that my idea might not work.
Maybe there was a little tongue in cheek in my post.The edit button is on the bottom of your field (at least for me using backwardy desktop pc).
I think you'll need more posts before the edit button shows up (though I'm not sure how many).
Interesting side note: On Friday the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case which presents the question, "What is the appropriate standard for awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party under § 505 of the Copyright Act?" That's right, kids, if someone sues you for copyright infringement and wins, they can ask for "reasonable" attorney fees. Yet another reason I doubt the Axanar litigation will ever go to trial.
Alec wrote that post at the end of December. There're been other posts re the legal situation since then.
Thing is, Alec Peters has written a lot of stuff. Most of it is bollocks.
He's went from having a lawyer, to not having a lawyer, to having lawyers wanting to represent him, to discussing with the 'top 20', to still looking for one, to 'deep talks'.
Looking through the thread oswriter would know much better than I, but I suspect no reputable lawyer would walk into a losing battle like this in the corner of an unstable client, and if someone did and he had a lawyer they'd have actually acted by now.
Parsing through Peters' various statements, I get the impression he's looking for a lawyer who will work for next-to-nothing, and that's a tough sell to any attorney with serious litigation experience. Attorneys may take a case for reduced fees if it might lead to a Supreme Court appeal or somehow advance the firm's own marketing. I don't see this case falling into either of those categories.
One problem may be Peters is seeking a lawyer who will tell him what he wants to hear--that this is somehow a winnable case--and he's found no takers. After talking with some friends in the litigation industry, I've heard that firms will not advise a client to litigate a hopeless cause. For one thing, it would be ethically irresponsible. For another, the attorneys within the firm have a duty to one another not to waste limited firm resources on clients who will provide nothing in return.
I think this is much more entertaining than Prelude was. Certainly better than that Vulcan scene which had all the excitement of waiting in line at the DMV.
Interesting to see how long he plays this out and what his excuse will be next week when no one is willing to represent him.
Interesting to see how long he plays this out and what his excuse will be next week when no one is willing to represent him.
However, he might earn fame by being in legal textbooks as examples of the types of cases attorneys should avoid and are ethically irresponsible.
Benefits for a law firm are few.
- No $$ or very little
- No case law to make
- No trip to the Supreme Court
- No real experience afforded to junior members of the firm
- No real contacts for the client which could help the firm in the future
And I invite you to draw your own conclusions on this as well.
Last edited:
I'd be curious to know just what the Supreme Court sees as "reasonable". Sometimes I feel like the courts exist more to support the corporations than to protect the people these days, though that's probably just me reading too much of what comes out of the geek media.
- Status