I read the whole thing, though I had to go back and forth many times to get the gist of what they were attempting to claim.
They are not Copyright Lawyers, that is exceptionally obvious.
They haven't got a clue how to formulate their arguments for this kind of suit.
That document is very hodgepodge.
It kinda looks like after a cursory Google search, they just grabbed some case sample chit off the Internets that seemed appropriate and went with that.
If I am remembering correctly, I think that some of it even appeared in the lawsuit documents that the CBS lawyer filed with the Court as a rebuttal to Abdin's original claims.
That section with the pictures, to me, just seems to prove exactly what the original Judge described in the dismissal.
They look similar, but previous case law says that one can't copyright a characters sex and/or racial features.
And trying to claim that CBS admitted to any wrongdoing, didn't work the first time.
Wow...

They are not Copyright Lawyers, that is exceptionally obvious.
They haven't got a clue how to formulate their arguments for this kind of suit.
That document is very hodgepodge.
It kinda looks like after a cursory Google search, they just grabbed some case sample chit off the Internets that seemed appropriate and went with that.
If I am remembering correctly, I think that some of it even appeared in the lawsuit documents that the CBS lawyer filed with the Court as a rebuttal to Abdin's original claims.
That section with the pictures, to me, just seems to prove exactly what the original Judge described in the dismissal.
They look similar, but previous case law says that one can't copyright a characters sex and/or racial features.
And trying to claim that CBS admitted to any wrongdoing, didn't work the first time.
Wow...

Last edited: