Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
breakdown_dismissal_letter [2018/12/12 00:41] – [The Case For and Against Dismissing the Tardigrades Suit] updates with new judge Carlos Pedrazabreakdown_dismissal_letter [2019/09/20 12:38] (current) – [Unprotected Elements] Carlos Pedraza
Line 1: Line 1:
 {{:copied_elements.jpg|}} {{:copied_elements.jpg|}}
-<fs smaller>**SUPERFICIAL SIMILARITIES?** The defense's grounds for dismissing the copyright lawsuit against //Star Trek: Discovery// dismiss the similarities between it and the Tardigrades videogame as "generic."</fs>+<fs smaller>**SUPERFICIAL SIMILARITIES?** The defense's grounds for dismissing the copyright lawsuit against //Star Trek: Discovery// call the similarities between it and the Tardigrades videogame "generic."</fs> 
 + 
 +<fs x-small>DECEMBER 6, 2018<wrap indent> |</wrap><wrap indent> ESTIMATED READING TIME 13 MINS</wrap></fs>
  
 ====== The Case For and Against Dismissing the Tardigrades Suit ====== ====== The Case For and Against Dismissing the Tardigrades Suit ======
Line 11: Line 13:
 Just what's wrong with the lawsuit against CBS and Netflix over //Star Trek: Discovery//, which developer Anas Abdin claims infringes on his unreleased videogame, Tardigrades? Just what's wrong with the lawsuit against CBS and Netflix over //Star Trek: Discovery//, which developer Anas Abdin claims infringes on his unreleased videogame, Tardigrades?
  
-In a December 3, 2018, letter to U.S. District Court [[Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald]], attorney Wook Hwang spelled out precisely why he believed the case shouldn't move forward: Essentially, that Abdin's claims that //Discovery// stole his ideas, and that Netflix (//Discovery//'s international distributor) is equally liable, don't hold up under the law.+In a December 3, 2018, letter to the U.S. District Court  judge in the case, attorney Wook Hwang spelled out precisely why he believed the case shouldn't move forward: Essentially, that Abdin's claims that //Discovery// stole his ideas, and that Netflix (//Discovery//'s international distributor) is equally liable, don't hold up under the law.
  
 For his part, Abdin replied through his lawyers, [[tardigrade_lawsuit_trouble#plaintiff_s_attorneys|John Johnson and Allan Chan]], on December 5 with a letter to the judge answering Hwang's criticism. For his part, Abdin replied through his lawyers, [[tardigrade_lawsuit_trouble#plaintiff_s_attorneys|John Johnson and Allan Chan]], on December 5 with a letter to the judge answering Hwang's criticism.
Line 21: Line 23:
  
 <WRAP center 95%> <WRAP center 95%>
-<fs smaller>**//See also: [[tardigrades_pre_motion|CBS Seeks Meeting with Judge to Dismiss Copyright Case Against Discovery]]//**</fs>+<fs smaller>**//See also: [[tardigrades_pre_motion|CBS Seeks Meeting with Judge to Dismiss Copyright Case Against Discovery]] and [[tardigrades_third_complaint|Copyright Lawsuit Names Discovery Writer as Possible Link]]//**</fs>
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
 +
 +===== Conference Scheduled =====
 +
 +U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield scheduled a pre-motion conference regarding the defense's planned motion to dismiss the case. That conference will be January 8, 2019, in New York. Ahead of that meeting, each side must filed a status letter and case management plan by January 2.
 + 
 ===== 'In the Plaintiff's Favor' ===== ===== 'In the Plaintiff's Favor' =====
  
Line 98: Line 105:
 > The court in //Ollie// held that the two figures were wholly different … "although the Dominoid and Donny Domino are similar, in that their bodies consist of a domino with one dot in the top square and two dots in the bottom square, the court find the this similarity is attributable to the fact that both works used Domino's trademarked domino as the body. … However, the humanizing of a domino is an idea not subject to copyright protection."((Abdin v. CBS Broadcasting Inc. et al., Docket 39, p. 3, 12/05/18.)) > The court in //Ollie// held that the two figures were wholly different … "although the Dominoid and Donny Domino are similar, in that their bodies consist of a domino with one dot in the top square and two dots in the bottom square, the court find the this similarity is attributable to the fact that both works used Domino's trademarked domino as the body. … However, the humanizing of a domino is an idea not subject to copyright protection."((Abdin v. CBS Broadcasting Inc. et al., Docket 39, p. 3, 12/05/18.))
  
 +{{anchor:storyboard}}
 That last sentence, however, is precisely how Hwang cited the //Ollie// case. That last sentence, however, is precisely how Hwang cited the //Ollie// case.
 ---- ----