Not the first time he's done that.
Theory for TOS Enterprise and Disco Enterprise differences
- Thread starter TrickyDickie
- Start date
True... but it's important to keep one's terms consistent. What exactly do you mean by "survive"... actual survival of physical life, or mere continuation of the current status quo conditions? And what scale of "society" are you talking about here? The planet Earth? The human species? The entire United Federation of Planets? Once again: nothing in DSC season 1 suggested that the Klingons posed an existential threat to the physical survival of any of these.
These distinctions are critical. In one sense, for instance, ancient Roman society ceased to exist due to a self-inflicted wound, when it changed from a Republic to an Empire. In a different sense, Roman society not only survived but continued to expand.
In Trek history, Earth itself (although not the entire Federation) has been threatened before. The events of ST:TMP and STIV:TVH spring readily to mind, both involving threats that seemed far more implacable than a simple military enemy. In "I, Borg" some crew members felt the Borg posed a similar threat, albeit less convincingly. Still, in all of those cases, Starfleet officers found ways to avert the threat that were nonviolent and consistent with Federation principles.
In a military conflict, what we're touching on here is what's known as "just war theory." It's important to note that even when there is just cause to engage in war (jus ad bellum), there are entirely separate criteria for just conduct within it (jus in bello), including proportionality and avoiding harm to noncombatants. IOW, there are no circumstances that justify "winning by any means necessary."
Indeed. Concerning habeas corpus, for instance, the way many high-level US officials in the Bush/Cheney administration were ready and willing to toss aside not just that but many other cherished Constitutional guarantees in the face of a frankly trivial threat was deeply disturbing.
***
And now, once again, back to the design discussion!...
This reflects a misunderstanding that has already been debunked. To wit, you're talking about the wrong area of IP law. Patents (which actually last for 20 years) only apply to functional inventions. Unless the Trek producers devised a working starship, that's not what we're talking about here. What's relevant is copyright (which applies to stories, characters, and other narrative elements), and especially trademark (which applies to non-functional visual designs). Copyright protection in the U.S lasts for 95 years, and trademark protection lasts indefinitely.
The Coca-Cola bottle design, for instance, is still a protected trademark... and so is the original design of the starship Enterprise.
Moreover, there is not and never was any rule that you could refresh any form of IP protection by changing something "25%." Indeed, there's no clear definition of what a 25 percent change would even mean for most forms of IP.
All legal issues aside, this is a subjective conclusion, and one I can understand and (to an extent) agree with. I look at it like this: the Trek universe has gone through quite a few retrocausal timeline alterations over the years. What Paramount and CBS call the "Prime" timeline is the most recent incarnation of that timeline, the one that existed at the point Romulus was destroyed in 2387. This is not the same thing as the original Trek timeline we actually saw throughout TOS.
But it didn't match ANH in every way. The one thing that jumps out at me (I haven't watched Rogue One for a while) is that we wouldn't have K-2SO and other imperial droids of the like if they were trying to match ANH.
"Newest production values" can mean creating cgi droids that don't really fit in with older films, no?
There's obviously nothing I can do to change your mind. But thank you for clarifying what you meant.
Indeed, indeed. But, to be fair, that ship sailed with TMP and TNG as GR adjusted what he wanted Star Trek and future humanity to look like.
As others have stated I think the events in TOS are far more important than the visual design or technology.
Paramount used to take out design patents once upon a time, but neither CBS and Paramount have tried to patent anything in the last 30 years, presumably they feel the exisiting copyrights and trademarks are sufficient.
That being said, changing things up is good for business. If Discovery used a 1:1 reporoduction of the TOS Enterprise, I would probably have been satisfied with my existing model of such, instead of coughing up $75 for the Discoprise version.
That being said, changing things up is good for business. If Discovery used a 1:1 reporoduction of the TOS Enterprise, I would probably have been satisfied with my existing model of such, instead of coughing up $75 for the Discoprise version.
Interesting, your claim is that because the Klingons weren't bringing total annihilation of the intelligent members of the Federation and instead would, say make them slaves and slaughter vast numbers if any kind of resistance was offered (such as was done in Errand of Mercy except on a vaster sacle) then that'a a mere '"change in the status quo"' conditions as though it would be as minimally destructive as a Canadian government changing from Liberal to Convervative. And that justifies not doing something that made it clear to an alien race bent on conquest and subjugation the the cost was to high in the only language they are interested in listening to?
Yeah. Distinctions are critical.
For instance, your comparison to Rome turning from a Republic to an empire as a comparison, When the Roman Republic changed to an Empire very little changed for the vast majority of the population. Augustus in fact made a point to avoid making any major alterations to the overall status quo and did not flaunt his power, but that's not what Klingons have ever been like. And it was an internal reorganization of government, not the results of an alien invasion, so yes, Rome continued and expanded and even enjoyed great periods of peace, ruled over by, you got it, by Romans, and there is little indication that Roman society changed much from Kingdom to Republic to Empire in terms of overall culture and treatment of the population. True there was Nero and Caligula but the empire didn't succumb to supervision of its principles for long at any point and would recover them quickly enough once the bad emperors were gotten rid of, there was also the multi-generational Pax Romana period between Nerva and Marcus Aurelius.
On the other hand, the Klingons are entirely representative of the tribes that did conquer the Western Roman Empire across the 4th and 5th centuries sacking and destorying as they went. And that sure did change the Status Quo. It created the freaking dark ages. Yay?
You seem to think that a dark ages is preferable to an imperfect Federation offering a response to the Klingons in a language their culture understands because its not according to Federation principles as a last ditch effort for surivival. In a dark ages all those principles go away anyways so your position would preserve nothing, not the Federation or its principles and possibly have them never see the light of day again. Is that what you really find the preferable choice? It certainly hasn't been the preferable choice of the Federation. Not in the 23rd century or the 24th.
Last edited:
Then you must have seen a different movie than I did, because I thought it had the feel of ANH just fine.
Again, I’m not sure why you think K-2SO does not fit with the overall feel of a ANH prequel. You mean because he wasn’t a guy in a robot suit, but a CGI robot?
Well, there’s nothing about my opinion that I feel I need to change.
Ah, you are unaware that all the movie designs were patented as "toy space ship". The design does not have to be functional if all you are patenting is the object as a toy. And while the Coca Cola bottle can be trade marked, a little mis-understanding in our laws has created a gap so that fictional space ship designs remain unprotected after the patent runs out (and my comment about 17 years was referencing the term that the TMP Enterprise, Reliant, Excelsior, and Bird of Prey were patented - they must have extended it since then). Because these items are technically vehicle designs, the design cannot be copyrighted in the US. Because they are not signed works of art, they cannot be copyrighted. As for the trademark claim you make, if you cease to use an item the trademark expires. By ceasing to use the TOS or TMP Enterprise design, any potential trademark will expire. And when I searched thorough the trademarks, I could find nothing on any of the vehicles used in Star Trek. The name is trademarked, but then that applies to any Starship Enterprise they might care to use.
I have been studying this topic from several aspects for many years. I started out as a Font/Typeface designer and now that I have drawings nearing completion, the particulars of protections on those have been the focus of my research. Typefaces and vehicle designs CANNOT be copyrighted. Typefaces have been excluded by the courts and vehicles specifically in the law. Both can be patented (and Paramount filed a lot of patents for the Star Trek movies for both the TMP font and the movie vehicles), but once the patent expires there are no protections. Now a font is a particular set of instructions to tell a computer how to render the typeface so the font file is covered by copyright, but when you use a font to generate a bitmap of the typeface, the end result is no longer covered by the copyright on the font. So I can take the Starfleet Bold Extended font (copyrighted) and I can use it to detail the markings on a Star Trek ship and provided the end result is in print or a bitmap graphic, it can be distributed to as many people as I like. I cannot make a PDF with an embedded font without the appropriate rights to the font because the essential code gets embedded in the PDF file.
So, if the model makers had drawings, those could be copyrighted. But my understanding of how they make most of the models (excluding Enterprise D which was built from detailed plans), there are no detailed drawings because the details are applied during the construction of the model as needed. This is why the windows on most of the Star Trek models are so variable. They put them where they looked good.
So back to my point - CBS wanted a 25% change to all the designs because that lets them submit new patents to protect the new designs so they can ask more for licencing. If there have been any trademarks issues to the 3d designs of any of the ships, please find them on the US Patent and Trademark site and share them. The patents on the movie designs are easy to find (they even let you download the original submission in PDF form). I have not checked for new patents because I don't like the designs enough to care.
This has been my opinion since Eaves first mentioned the 25% difference.
Besides, CBS still licences merchandise that depicts designs from all the movies and TV shows, including TOS and the Prime Timeline Movies, which means they have the rights to them.
Nope, it's everything, including TOS.
Last edited:
No. That's an inaccurate paraphrase that sets up a straw-man position. What I actually pointed out is that, while some posters were arguing that if the very survival of humanity (and/or the Federation) was threatened, that justifies violent actions that violate agreed-upon moral principles (i.e., winning "by any means necessary"), neither part of that claim actually applied in DSC. Survival was not actually threatened, and even when it has been (at other points in Trek history), other less extreme and more principled solutions have remained available.
Moreover, whatever one thinks of the Klingon War, it's over now, as is whatever threat is posed. Yet, somehow, Section 31 continues to exist, and the people who thought the threat of genocide was a valid tactic still hold power. Institutions (and moral compromises) have inertia, and once such things have been condoned once, they tend to stick around, even under less extreme circumstances than those that initially "justified" them.
Moreover again, vilifying enemies as "only understanding violence" is an age-old form of propaganda, but it's virtually never true. One thing Star Trek has consistently been good at over the years is puncturing that sort of propaganda.
That second part is definitely not true, but this isn't the place to digress into the details. As for the first part, you're missing the point of my analogy. It was merely offered to illustrate the importance of clarifying one's terms. To the defenders of the Republic, the prospect of an Empire ruled by dictators posed a real, existential threat to the survival of Roman society. In a very real sense, that came to pass. Yet in a different sense (as you describe), Roman society continued. My point was to underscore the importance of cutting through hyperbole about things like "a last-ditch effort for survival" to focus on the actual stakes and risks involved in any given situation.
Last edited:
And I think we see the fruits of such an attitude born out by Star Trek down the line.
Of course they are still in power, because they weren't proven wrong, their action of last resort appeared to have achieved the results required to end the war. The people who condoned the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan also remained in power, and according to history they kept dropping nukes on people who disagreed with American Hegemony every few years to remind folks of that. Oh wait. They didn't. Funny that.
You consider how the Klingons were presented in this show as propaganda. That's your choice.
Last edited:
What is this "misunderstanding"? That seems extraordinarily specific. Is there some specific case or statute you could point me to?
At no point have the owners of Star Trek ceased to use the original design of the Enterprise; merchandise featuring it continues to be commercially available on an ongoing basis. (Technically what we're talking about here is "trade dress," but that's been subsumed under the umbrella of trademark law in the U.S.) And trademarks don't have to be registered with the government (although registration does confer a few additional advantages); protection is automatic (just as with copyright) once you've put the IP in front of the public.
You're right about typefaces, FWIW; they can't be copyrighted under US law (although some other countries differ), although the machine code used to display them digitally can be. But the analogy to vehicle designs (e.g., for automobiles) is imperfect. It's true that those can't be copyrighted, since they are functional objects. However, trademark protection does apply to a vehicle's design, in order to deter knockoffs.
Here's where the flaw creeps in. CBS is still the only company that has the right to license any version of the Enterprise design for merchandising. Anyone who attempts to use it without a license will find himself the target of an infringement suit, and he'll lose. The notion that CBS can ask "more" for protected designs is mistaken; what it can ask depends entirely on whatever the market will bear, whereas for designs that were not protected, it couldn't ask anything, because those would be freely available to use.
However, it may indeed be the case that CBS wanted a "new" Enterprise design, for which it could charge new licensing fees, entirely separate from whatever fees it collects for use of the original design.
(Even then, though, the "25%" thing has no basis in law. The standard for infringement hinges on "likelihood of confusion," for which there are several criteria, only one of which is visual similarity, and even for that there's no quantitative threshold, nor could there plausibly be one.)
Anyone else want the 25% thing to disappear forever? It keeps getting trotted out like some sort of iron clad standard, but, as noted above, has no legal standing.
Hooray for confusion!
It's not their plan that succeeded... Burnham had to talk them down from that plan. Otherwise the Klingon homeworld would have been destroyed. That was a key element of the finale.
Besides which, ex post results do not provide ethical justification for a prior set of actions, even in a purely consequentialist approach to ethics, because it's impossible to prove that alternative actions might not have achieved similar or better results.
Debate continues to this day as to whether the original use of atomic weapons on Japan was justified. FWIW, I'm in the camp that thinks it wasn't. Beyond that, though, Patton wanted to use them in Korea. LeMay wanted to use them in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Various generals including Westmoreland (and presidential candidate Goldwater) wanted to use them in Vietnam. (And other less-famous examples abound.) Yet it's clear that none of those conflicts had stakes as high as World War II... and using nukes would only have raised the stakes. It's fortunate that the post-WWII taboo against using nukes prevailed (oh, look... a principle!), but there was never any guarantee that it wouldn't be violated.
And I seriously think you misunderstand trademarks. I downloaded the basic facts PDF about filing and nothing in that document even hints that a 3d object can be trade marked. Nothing. Trademarks (and servicemarks) are for names and logos, not products. The ships of Star Trek would be considered products. So after the expiration of a patent, there are no protections.
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFacts.pdf
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFacts.pdf
CBS put out the 25%. That is how much they wanted it changed. It has no legal standing, but it is relevant because of who inserted it in the discussion.Anyone else want the 25% thing to disappear forever? It keeps getting trotted out like some sort of iron clad standard, but, as noted above, has no legal standing.
Hooray for confusion!
Actually, no, they didn't.
John Eaves initially said they did, but then he back-walked it. There's no actual evidence that the "25%" was ever a legal thing.
According to whom? When? This has never been made explicit, nor could it be, logically.
The critical difference between canon and continuity raises its head again here. What has been depicted in canon over the years is not a single, internally consistent timeline. (Let's leave the specifics aside for now; they've all been discussed around there at length.) What has been labeled as Prime is one version of that timeline, the one from which Old!Spock left 2387 for 2233.
Does "Prime" include some version of TOS events? It seems reasonable to infer so, given statements by Old!Spock. Are those events exactly as we saw them in canon on screen? The only way to answer that would be through a (re)presentation of the TOS era on screen, now, that is explicitly labeled as "Prime." That's what DSC says it is, now... and yet, hmm, it seems substantially different from the original version in several ways.
IMHO the best way to rationalize this is by way of retrocausal timeline changes. If you have a different approach, I'm interested in hearing it. Simply saying "nah, it's really all the same" doesn't answer anything, however.
My IP professor in law school would disagree with you.
Regardless, your interpretation of trademarks is too narrow. As I already mentioned, current U.S. trademark law goes beyond the narrow traditional definition (names, logos, etc.) and also encompasses "trade dress" ("characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging"). That's what's at issue here.
Even if they did (or if someone at CBS said that to Eaves at some point), the notion is ridiculous. There's no agreed-upon metric for measuring the difference between one visual design and another. It's a completely subjective thing.
Similar threads
