Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
dismissal-citations [2016/02/29 22:42] – [More Thorough Analysis] Carlos Pedraza | dismissal-citations [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | {{:: | + | {{:: |
====== Examining the Case Law Behind the Motion to Dismiss ====== | ====== Examining the Case Law Behind the Motion to Dismiss ====== | ||
- | The defendants' | + | {{TOC}} |
- | In a post on the blog for the popular Star Trek podcast, "The G&T Show," attorney Janet Gershen-Siegel looks at the cases by Axanar attorney | + | <WRAP left round important 50%> |
+ | <wrap lo>< | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | The defendants' | ||
+ | In a post on the blog for the popular Star Trek podcast, "The G&T Show," attorney Janet Gershen-Siegel [[http:// | ||
===== Five Reasons to Dismiss ===== | ===== Five Reasons to Dismiss ===== | ||
Here are the five essential arguments the defense offers to convince federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] to dismiss the studios' | Here are the five essential arguments the defense offers to convince federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] to dismiss the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
- Specify the copyrights being infringed, thereby failing to properly notify the defendants. | - Specify the copyrights being infringed, thereby failing to properly notify the defendants. | ||
Line 15: | Line 22: | ||
- Show how they can claim infringement by a film that has not yet been produced. | - Show how they can claim infringement by a film that has not yet been produced. | ||
- Justify an injunction halting production because it would be a prior restraint on free speech. | - Justify an injunction halting production because it would be a prior restraint on free speech. | ||
- | |||
==== Vague Copyright Claims ==== | ==== Vague Copyright Claims ==== | ||
- | [{{ :: | + | [{{ :: |
The defense calls for dismissal because CBS and Paramount don't specify exactly which of their copyrights were infringed, citing four cases to back them up. Of them, Siegel says only one directly applies. | The defense calls for dismissal because CBS and Paramount don't specify exactly which of their copyrights were infringed, citing four cases to back them up. Of them, Siegel says only one directly applies. | ||
Line 41: | Line 47: | ||
Does Axanar' | Does Axanar' | ||
- | ==== Too Soon to File Suit ==== | + | ==== Too Soon to Sue ==== |
The defense believes that any claims related specifically to the as-yet-unproduced Axanar film should be dismissed, saying the court can't determine whether a film infringed or not if it hasn't been made yet. | The defense believes that any claims related specifically to the as-yet-unproduced Axanar film should be dismissed, saying the court can't determine whether a film infringed or not if it hasn't been made yet. | ||
Line 47: | Line 53: | ||
Siegel examines the five cases cited to support this argument, concluding: | Siegel examines the five cases cited to support this argument, concluding: | ||
* Only one resulted in a dismissal but without prejudice, meaning it could be re-filed. | * Only one resulted in a dismissal but without prejudice, meaning it could be re-filed. | ||
- | * Another dealt with a patent on the design of a concrete, tangible item rather | + | * Another dealt with a patent on the design of a concrete, tangible item as opposed to works of fiction that are "often edited and otherwise amended even after they are considered completed, and without said editing converting them back to incomplete status." |
* Two cases dealing with works that couldn' | * Two cases dealing with works that couldn' | ||
Line 54: | Line 60: | ||
The defense argues the injunction sought by CBS and Paramount would be {!prior restraint: | The defense argues the injunction sought by CBS and Paramount would be {!prior restraint: | ||
- | To back up this claim, attorney Ranahan cites the famous [[https:// | + | To back up this claim, attorney Ranahan cites the famous [[https:// |
===== More Thorough Analysis ===== | ===== More Thorough Analysis ===== | ||
Siegel is posting a second blog focusing on a more thorough examination of the motion to dismiss.(([[http:// | Siegel is posting a second blog focusing on a more thorough examination of the motion to dismiss.(([[http:// |