Underworld Suit (was: Obvious to Us: WHite Wolf Sues about "Underworld")
Sorcier
>
> No, but it seems to be popular to take bits and pieces of the case out
> of context with the rest of the case, and then mock White Wolf for those
> bits and pieces. Anyone who's read the complaint can actually tell that
> "vampires fighting werewolves" is not claimed anywhere in the complaint
> as exclusively White Wolf's property. It's one of the cited points of
> similarity. Of which there are sixty.
The more telling being the similiarities in plot and character
to Collins' novel. But with the genders of the Vampire and
Werewolf switched.
I did find the comparison to a seperately existing bad-ass
vampire chick as rather spurious, though.
In my impression, the movie's world is heavily inspired by WoD.
Although almost any given world element is independently derivable
or borrowable from another source.
The plotline, from what WW writes, sounds like a direct steal.
(Here, I'm referring to specific details of relations between
supporting cast, not just the back cover blurb type stuff.)
Specifics of design claimed to be lifted from WoD other than
the above two types look spurious though. But likely useful
for establishing as many points of correlation as possible.
If someone can post a copy of the "sixty points", I think it
would be rather an interesting thread for us to debate over
the specifics. I tried to do this but haven't found a tool
yet to break the scanned .pdf into text.
Crosspost added to rec.games.frp.misc as this really belongs there.
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
> >
> > No, but it seems to be popular to take bits and pieces of the case out
> > of context with the rest of the case, and then mock White Wolf for those
> > bits and pieces. Anyone who's read the complaint can actually tell that
> > "vampires fighting werewolves" is not claimed anywhere in the complaint
> > as exclusively White Wolf's property. It's one of the cited points of
> > similarity. Of which there are sixty.
>
> The more telling being the similiarities in plot and character
> to Collins' novel. But with the genders of the Vampire and
> Werewolf switched.
>
> I did find the comparison to a seperately existing bad-ass
> vampire chick as rather spurious, though.
It's a point of similarity. It's not just "this is a badass vampire
chick," but "this is a badass vampire chick who has a strained
relationship with her sire, and who's one of the deadliest killers in
the world."
Anyway, White Wolf pretty much has to list every point of similarity
they can find.
> In my impression, the movie's world is heavily inspired by WoD.
> Although almost any given world element is independently derivable
> or borrowable from another source.
>
> The plotline, from what WW writes, sounds like a direct steal.
> (Here, I'm referring to specific details of relations between
> supporting cast, not just the back cover blurb type stuff.)
>
> Specifics of design claimed to be lifted from WoD other than
> the above two types look spurious though. But likely useful
> for establishing as many points of correlation as possible.
Right, because vampire-werewolf "abominations" aren't something White
Wolf ever used, or the use of the term "embrace" to refer to making a
vampire.
> If someone can post a copy of the "sixty points", I think it
> would be rather an interesting thread for us to debate over
> the specifics. I tried to do this but haven't found a tool
> yet to break the scanned .pdf into text.
Funksaw posted a text version of the complaints at rpg.net.
--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kalima...@oakthorne.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
Geoffrey Brent
> Right, because vampire-werewolf "abominations" aren't something White
> Wolf ever used, or the use of the term "embrace" to refer to making a
> vampire.
Although these lyrics, dating to 1989 IIRC, are interesting:
http://www.lyricsdir.com/f/faith-no-more/the-real-thing.php
Doesn't *explicitly* mention vampires, but it's very easy to read that
into it; I sometimes wonder whether that song might not have been on
heavy rotation in V:tM's early days.
The individual points are weak on their own - anybody with gothic
leanings and a decent thesaurus could quite innocently reproduce a
handful of them without ever having heard of V:tM. But taken together,
they do start looking like quite a lot.
Sorcier
>
> Sorcier wrote:
> >
> > In my impression, the movie's world is heavily inspired by WoD.
> > Although almost any given world element is independently derivable
> > or borrowable from another source.
> >
> > The plotline, from what WW writes, sounds like a direct steal.
> > (Here, I'm referring to specific details of relations between
> > supporting cast, not just the back cover blurb type stuff.)
> >
> > Specifics of design claimed to be lifted from WoD other than
> > the above two types look spurious though. But likely useful
> > for establishing as many points of correlation as possible.
>
> Right, because vampire-werewolf "abominations" aren't something White
> Wolf ever used, or the use of the term "embrace" to refer to making a
> vampire.
I covered that in part one.
I'm not sure of another source on "abominations" but it's a fairly
obvious derivation.
"Embrace" has been used _a_lot_.
My point in paragraph 1 and 3 is that I do think they lifted WoD.
But comparisons of minor point X from the movie to obscure point Y
from WoD are what I was calling spurious.
> > If someone can post a copy of the "sixty points", I think it
> > would be rather an interesting thread for us to debate over
> > the specifics. I tried to do this but haven't found a tool
> > yet to break the scanned .pdf into text.
>
> Funksaw posted a text version of the complaints at rpg.net.
Can someone port it to here?
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>
> > Right, because vampire-werewolf "abominations" aren't something White
> > Wolf ever used, or the use of the term "embrace" to refer to making a
> > vampire.
>
> Although these lyrics, dating to 1989 IIRC, are interesting:
>
> http://www.lyricsdir.com/f/faith-no-more/the-real-thing.php
>
> Doesn't *explicitly* mention vampires, but it's very easy to read that
> into it; I sometimes wonder whether that song might not have been on
> heavy rotation in V:tM's early days.
It may have been. I always took it to be about drugs.
> The individual points are weak on their own - anybody with gothic
> leanings and a decent thesaurus could quite innocently reproduce a
> handful of them without ever having heard of V:tM. But taken together,
> they do start looking like quite a lot.
That's rather my point. It's not that this one thing or that other thing
is weak. It's that these several things together provides a more
realistic perspective.
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> I covered that in part one.
> I'm not sure of another source on "abominations" but it's a fairly
> obvious derivation.
> "Embrace" has been used _a_lot_.
> My point in paragraph 1 and 3 is that I do think they lifted WoD.
> But comparisons of minor point X from the movie to obscure point Y
> from WoD are what I was calling spurious.
No. It's not "it's this one thing" and "it's this one thing." It's "it's
this thing here in combination with that thing there." You haven't
covered that. No one really has. It's mostly sarcastic comments about
one point at a time - which is certainly like shooting fish in a barrel.
Also, as I understand it, all the points of similarity need to be
listed, even if they seem spurious. That's something else people seem to
not understand in the rush to trash the evil lawsuit hungry company.
Sorcier
>
> Sorcier wrote:
> >
> > I covered that in part one.
> > I'm not sure of another source on "abominations" but it's a fairly
> > obvious derivation.
> > "Embrace" has been used _a_lot_.
> > My point in paragraph 1 and 3 is that I do think they lifted WoD.
> > But comparisons of minor point X from the movie to obscure point Y
> > from WoD are what I was calling spurious.
>
> No. It's not "it's this one thing" and "it's this one thing." It's "it's
> this thing here in combination with that thing there." You haven't
> covered that. No one really has.
Um, yes, I did.
I agreed that the overall combination feels much like WoD and that the
character relations mirror the novel far too closely.
> It's mostly sarcastic comments about
> one point at a time
Not from me.
> Also, as I understand it, all the points of similarity need to be
> listed, even if they seem spurious.
I merely felt that some points of similarity are no more similar than
saying "Both Aliens and Terminator II contained a tough female
character."
Such points add zero credibility.
However they are _not_ the preponderance of the suit.
> That's something else people seem to
> not understand in the rush to trash the evil lawsuit hungry company.
You've mistaken me for someone else. ;)
I've not committed to either side, but am leaning towards WW and Collins
have been unfairly mined.
I think I've kept a fairly balanced view so far.
Robert Scott Clark
> I'm not sure of another source on "abominations" but it's a fairly
> obvious derivation.
I haven't seen any evidence that it's a derivation of anything. It's an
English word.
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know how it was used in the film,
but...
"The name we have given to vampire-werewolk hybrids is "Abomination""
and
"You <pointing to the Michael character> are an ABOMINATION!"
are two very different things. One is a piece of specific terminology that
might have been taken from WW. The other is an English word being used
with it's correct definition - and I can't really think of a better word
for the context.
The same stands for "You offered him the Embrace?" vs "Come into my dark
embrace."
The Blood thing is bizarre because I have yet to mention this case to any
WW fan who recalled "Blood" being used to refer to vampires, let alone that
"vee" thing that is the second dumbest thing in the complaint.
The only terminology thing that's really damning is "torpor" and I'm not
even sure that's a terminology complaint. The document I read did not put
"torpor" in quotes when refering to it. Given that they did this in all
other cases where exact wording was being used, that means to me that
either Underworld did not use that word directly, or the lawyers for WW are
amateurish - if the former, it also reeks of dishonesty.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Malachias Invictus
"Sorcier" <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
news:3F5FFD...@cavtel.net...
> Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
> I merely felt that some points of similarity are no more similar than
> saying "Both Aliens and Terminator II contained a tough female
> character."
> Such points add zero credibility.
You are wrong. Those things are absolutely necessary for the suit. The
smallest similarities must all be covered in this type of dispute.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Sorcier
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote in news:3F5E99...@cavtel.net:
>
> > I'm not sure of another source on "abominations" but it's a fairly
> > obvious derivation.
>
> I haven't seen any evidence that it's a derivation of anything. It's an
> English word.
"Abomination" means "monstrosity" or "aberrations" or such.
Deciding that a werewolf/vampire cross would be monstrous is simple.
Deciding that it would be an aberration, from a human, were, or vampire
perspective is also simple.
Assigning the label "abomination" to such a creation is thus, IMO,
fairly simple.
> I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know how it was used in the film,
> but...
>
> "The name we have given to vampire-werewolk hybrids is "Abomination""
>
> and
>
> "You <pointing to the Michael character> are an ABOMINATION!"
>
> are two very different things. One is a piece of specific terminology that
> might have been taken from WW. The other is an English word being used
> with it's correct definition - and I can't really think of a better word
> for the context.
Agreed.
> The same stands for "You offered him the Embrace?" vs "Come into my dark
> embrace."
Likewise.
> The Blood thing is bizarre because I have yet to mention this case to any
> WW fan who recalled "Blood" being used to refer to vampires, let alone that
> "vee" thing that is the second dumbest thing in the complaint.
What's the first? ;)
> The only terminology thing that's really damning is "torpor" and I'm not
> even sure that's a terminology complaint. The document I read did not put
> "torpor" in quotes when refering to it. Given that they did this in all
> other cases where exact wording was being used, that means to me that
> either Underworld did not use that word directly, or the lawyers for WW are
> amateurish - if the former, it also reeks of dishonesty.
Also, torpor is an English word, albeit not that common a one.
It ability describes the state of a recovering vampire in both settings.
OTOH, both setting having a similar "vampire sleep" is a point of
correspondence.
OTTH, that sort of rest predates either.
Again, let's give Anne Rice and everyone she borrowed from their shares
too. ;)
Sorcier
>
> "Sorcier" <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
> news:3F5FFD...@cavtel.net...
> > Julie d'Aubigny wrote:
>
> > I merely felt that some points of similarity are no more similar than
> > saying "Both Aliens and Terminator II contained a tough female
> > character."
> > Such points add zero credibility.
>
> You are wrong. Those things are absolutely necessary for the suit. The
> smallest similarities must all be covered in this type of dispute.
I think both are partially true.
It is likely in WW's best interest to include all points they can
think of.
It also adds zero credibility to include the spurious ones.
"Both contain Vampires" is a similiarity.
Your test says it should be included, mine says it should be
included simply as context.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> You are wrong. Those things are absolutely necessary for the suit. The
>> smallest similarities must all be covered in this type of dispute.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> I think both are partially true. It is likely in WW's best interest to
> include all points they can think of. It also adds zero credibility to
> include the spurious ones. "Both contain Vampires" is a similiarity.
> Your test says it should be included, mine says it should be included
> simply as context.
Your test is irrelevant in a lawsuit.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Robert Scott Clark
> What's the first? ;)
Having one similarity that states that vampires and werewolves use human
weapons like guns and knives and another that states they use their teeth
and claws to fight. Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't.
What are they supposed to do, run around and urinate on each other.
That's the #1 stupidest thing.
The #1 weakest is the "wood doesn't kill in WW, and they don't use wood in
Underworld" which if you actually know the rules in WW, is actually a
difference, and not a similarity (wooden stakes ARE useful against WW
vampires, and the fact that they aren't used in Underworld is a good
indication that they have no special effect vs Underworld vampires), and if
Sony plays their cards correctly should invalidate several of those 60
points of contention.
The #1 most bizarre thing isn't one of the similarities. At one point
before they list the similarities they go off about how being gothic and/or
punk inspires creativity unlike all those mainsteam things that stifle it.
My friend heard me refering to the similarities as "points of contention"
and called that section the "points of pretention". For the life of me, I
don't understand why that was included in the document apart from a WW
editor reading over the lawyer's shoulder and insisting he put in something
about how cool they are. I'm guessing the section about relative penis
size was cut from after the first draft.
Sir Bob
You don't get it: they are *legally required* to list even the smallest
points of similarity. Proper procedure demands it. It's just the way the
law works, regardless of what any individual thinks of it.
- Sir Bob.
Sorcier
Nah, yours is irrelevant period.
My is at least relevant in forming opinions.
Which is part of how lawsuits get settled.
Simply put: If you are correct, and I am wrong, why not include
"Both have vampires" or "Both are set on Earth" as individual points
rather than mere context?
Or even "Both use color" or "Both use words".
Sorcier
>
> You don't get it: they are *legally required* to list even the smallest
> points of similarity. Proper procedure demands it.
Since they failed to do so, does that mean their case has no merit?
> It's just the way the
> law works, regardless of what any individual thinks of it.
The law cannot work the way that is being said.
The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
I admittedly do not know the wording of the law, but if
it requires listing "even the smallest points of similarity",
it is simply impossible to comply with.
Sir Bob
Not really - there *is* a point at which details are accepted as simply
trivial. "Trivial", however, is not the same as "obvious"; one would do
well do learn this if one is going to argue points of law, because it comes
up all the time.
- Sir Bob.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>>> You are wrong. Those things are absolutely necessary for the suit.
>>>> The smallest similarities must all be covered in this type of
>>>> dispute.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>>> I think both are partially true. It is likely in WW's best interest
>>> to include all points they can think of. It also adds zero
>>> credibility to include the spurious ones. "Both contain Vampires" is
>>> a similiarity. Your test says it should be included, mine says it
>>> should be included simply as context.
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Your test is irrelevant in a lawsuit.
> Nah, yours is irrelevant period.
How do you know? Are you a lawyer? Do you know how infringement cases
are argued and settled? IIRC, Malachias *is* a lawyer and *does* know
how they work. I'll take his experience over your unfounded speculation
any day.
Dave
number of similarities between Underworld and WW publications. Some of
the points are stronger thn others, and some are just plain silly but
hey this IS a legal document :)
I think that Sony will just throw a small amount of money at WW to make
them go away, any film released these days has a bit of money set aside
in the budget to pay of legal parasites.
What would bhe more amusing is if Sony step up to the plate and counter
sue WW, get an injunction on WW assets and f*%k them over, legally
speaking :p But I doubt that will happen, it's too much to expect Sony
to rid us of WW and their endless splat-books and mock angst.
g
David Johnston
>
> Sir Bob wrote:
> >
> > You don't get it: they are *legally required* to list even the smallest
> > points of similarity. Proper procedure demands it.
>
> Since they failed to do so, does that mean their case has no merit?
>
> > It's just the way the
> > law works, regardless of what any individual thinks of it.
>
> The law cannot work the way that is being said.
> The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
Which is pretty much the case. Every time they have a case like this,
there's a huge list of absurdly trivial points of similarity. When
Lucas filed against Larson for Battlestar Galactica one of the
points, I swear to deity, was basically "both works have good guys
and bad guys fighting each other".
> I admittedly do not know the wording of the law, but if
> it requires listing "even the smallest points of similarity",
> it is simply impossible to comply with.
It isn't actually a law. It's just a principle that the more things
you can find that sort of match, the better your odds of winning
the case. It's the other side's job to then point out the differences,
like in Underworld, lycanthropy is a contagious condition, and in
Underworld, vampires and werewolves used to be chums.
Sorcier
>
> > The law cannot work the way that is being said.
> > The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
> > I admittedly do not know the wording of the law, but if
> > it requires listing "even the smallest points of similarity",
> > it is simply impossible to comply with.
>
> Not really - there *is* a point at which details are accepted as simply
> trivial. "Trivial", however, is not the same as "obvious";
True.
But that's closer to what I said should be included than to
what I'm being told should be included.
I never claimed the obvious was not worth including.
Just that the spurious wasn't.
IOW, that which borders on "trivially obvious", or additionally,
"points of similarity" that in no way add credibility.
Important distinction which the "include everything" arguement
is failing to make is that "spurious", "obvious", and "trivial"
are all matters of opinion, even when used as legal terminology.
> one would do
> well do learn this if one is going to argue points of law,
Yes, one would. ;)
> because it comes
> up all the time.
As I'm sure it will in this case.
Sorcier
>
> >>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
> >>>> You are wrong. Those things are absolutely necessary for the suit.
> >>>> The smallest similarities must all be covered in this type of
> >>>> dispute.
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> >>> I think both are partially true. It is likely in WW's best interest
> >>> to include all points they can think of. It also adds zero
> >>> credibility to include the spurious ones. "Both contain Vampires" is
> >>> a similiarity. Your test says it should be included, mine says it
> >>> should be included simply as context.
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> Your test is irrelevant in a lawsuit.
>
> > Nah, yours is irrelevant period.
>
> How do you know?
"Include all points of similarity"?
That test results in inclusion of the absolutely trivial.
"Both contain air."
Seriously, instead of repeatedly saying "you're wrong",
please explain why.
I _am_ failing to see how such an inclusive standard
is even possible to truly apply.
> IIRC, Malachias *is* a lawyer and *does* know
> how they work. I'll take his experience over your unfounded speculation
> any day.
I would if he offered a rational explanation, rather than a simple
"you're wrong" and an infinitely inclusive standard.
I am not speculating about how such cases work.
I have stated my layman's opinion that some points in this case
are spurious, trivial, irrelevant, whatever.
That set of opinions is quite simply irrelevant to the actual
legal standard.
I have also explained that an infinitely inclusive standard
is impossible to apply.
That is a fact of human nature.
Mal may likely know how these cases work,
but he _is_ failing to explain how they work.
Sorcier
>
> > The law cannot work the way that is being said.
> > The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
>
> Which is pretty much the case.
Can't be.
> Every time they have a case like this,
> there's a huge list of absurdly trivial points of similarity.
Huge?
Sure.
All?
Never.
But in this specific case: 60 points is hardly huge, is it?
IMO.
> When
> Lucas filed against Larson for Battlestar Galactica one of the
> points, I swear to deity, was basically "both works have good guys
> and bad guys fighting each other".
I believe you.
It's like WW's "both use guns".
Which interestingly enough, was not a point I found spurious,
although I understand why some others have.
> > I admittedly do not know the wording of the law, but if
> > it requires listing "even the smallest points of similarity",
> > it is simply impossible to comply with.
>
> It isn't actually a law.
Cool.
Point for me.
I was told the "law" requires it. ;)
> It's just a principle that the more things
> you can find that sort of match, the better your odds of winning
> the case.
I agree with that phrasing almost in full.
I still maintain that the truly spurious adds zero credibility.
It doesn't necessarily take away credibility.
Volume alone has some effect on adding to merit, even if not to
credibility.
Subtle distinction that. ;(
> It's the other side's job to then point out the differences,
> like in Underworld, lycanthropy is a contagious condition, and in
> Underworld, vampires and werewolves used to be chums.
Curiousity:
Does the other side typically attack the "points of similarity" to
show how weak or incorrect they may be?
And Dave, thanks for actually posting something meatier
than "you are wrong". ;)
Christopher Adams
enjoys, out of all proportion, arguing semantics and trivial details ad
infinitum et nauseam?
If not, then why do you guys bother replying to him?
--
Christopher Adams - SUTEKH Functions Officer 2003
When I awakened, I was not as I had been.
"A portfolio of erotic 'Buffy' fan-fiction does not a writer make."
- Neil, www.goats.com
Marc
> Which is pretty much the case. Every time they have a case like this,
> there's a huge list of absurdly trivial points of similarity. When
> Lucas filed against Larson for Battlestar Galactica one of the
> points, I swear to deity, was basically "both works have good guys
> and bad guys fighting each other".
This seems similar to when real world police officers arrest someone, they
throw in tons of charges that really don't matter to make sure they cover
their asses.
--
Marc
12/09/2003 10:24:12
Web Log http://ka_haku.livejournal.com
Marc
> It isn't actually a law. It's just a principle that the more things
> you can find that sort of match, the better your odds of winning
> the case. It's the other side's job to then point out the differences,
> like in Underworld, lycanthropy is a contagious condition, and in
> Underworld, vampires and werewolves used to be chums.
This resembles negotiations. You also put more than you want, so you have
giveaways, meaning, "Okay, we can live without having that." Basically, the
people who belittle these practices have never gone through the events in
question. One year I had to negotiate a new contract for the union I
belonged to at the time. You think WW looks silly...
--
Marc
12/09/2003 10:26:07
Web Log http://ka_haku.livejournal.com
Robert Scott Clark
> David Johnston wrote:
>>
>> > The law cannot work the way that is being said.
>> > The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
>>
>> Which is pretty much the case.
>
> Can't be.
>
>> Every time they have a case like this,
>> there's a huge list of absurdly trivial points of similarity.
>
> Huge?
> Sure.
> All?
> Never.
> But in this specific case: 60 points is hardly huge, is it?
> IMO.
>
>> When
>> Lucas filed against Larson for Battlestar Galactica one of the
>> points, I swear to deity, was basically "both works have good guys
>> and bad guys fighting each other".
>
> I believe you.
> It's like WW's "both use guns".
> Which interestingly enough, was not a point I found spurious,
> although I understand why some others have.
That one's funny in that individually it has a point, but taken
collectively with some of the other similarities it's weak.
Marc
>> I believe you.
>> It's like WW's "both use guns".
>> Which interestingly enough, was not a point I found spurious,
>> although I understand why some others have.
>
>
> That one's funny in that individually it has a point, but taken
> collectively with some of the other similarities it's weak.
What? You can't seriously think that "They both use guns." has any
validity.
--
Marc
12/09/2003 12:13:44
Web Log http://ka_haku.livejournal.com
Malachias Invictus
Context is certainly an important reason to include them. "Both contain
Vampires" *is* is important similarity that must be included in the
complaint. Some of the points of similarity are minor, true, but combined
with other minor and/or major points of similarity, you prove your case.
Compare this suit to collect enough money to buy something at an auction.
You think the item is going to go for $5.00 or so. Some points may be worth
$1, but those are generally few and far between. For the most part, you are
going to be digging in the couch for spare change. After counting all your
silver coinage, you may still find yourself short, or you may have over
$5.00 but still want a "buffer zone" in case your estimation of the buying
price is wrong. That is when you start counting the "pennies".
Essentially, 25 "pennies" are worth the same as a "quarter". The "pennies"
Some points ( such as "both use color" and "both are set on earth") do not
even qualify as "pennies," of course.
I hope this explains it better.
Malachias Invictus
> The law cannot work the way that is being said.
> The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
> I admittedly do not know the wording of the law, but if
> it requires listing "even the smallest points of similarity",
> it is simply impossible to comply with.
There *is* a reasonability standard, and you definitely do not want to piss
off the judge by getting silly.
Allan Goodall
>What? You can't seriously think that "They both use guns." has any
>validity.
It's a matter of convergence. Individually each one point might look silly, or
generic, but when you add them all up the evidence converges to the point
where both products look very similar. Sure, "they both use guns" looks silly
on its own, as plenty of other movies use guns, too, but it's the convergence
with the rest of the stuff that matters. It's the fact that it's vampires and
werewolves (and the other similarities) with the use of guns that's the
important part.
Put another way, if the original story didn't use guns and _Underworld_ did,
that would be a point of dissimilarity. If the original story used guns and
_Underworld_ did not, that's a point of dissimilarity. That they both use guns
has to be added into the mix of things that are similar.
Allan Goodall agoo...@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know
well!" - Joe Ancis
Robert Scott Clark
$.d...@40tude.net:
> On 12 Sep 2003 10:54:07 -0500, Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>
>>> I believe you.
>>> It's like WW's "both use guns".
>>> Which interestingly enough, was not a point I found spurious,
>>> although I understand why some others have.
>>
>>
>> That one's funny in that individually it has a point, but taken
>> collectively with some of the other similarities it's weak.
>
> What? You can't seriously think that "They both use guns." has any
> validity.
In Dracula 2000, bullets were totally ineffectual. As an individual
point, it is a choice made from several valid options (from within the
collective vampire mythology) that happens to match the exact same choice
made by WW. If the mythology is almost always done the same way and both
match, this isn't a good point - the match is just due to both using the
standard rules. But if several different options are used in a
collection of different sources, yet Underworld repeatedly picked the
exact same options as WW, then it looks less and less likely that it is a
coincidence and more likely that it is copying.
That's why individually the bullet thing is a valid point. Some myths
have bullets be effective. Some do not. Both Underworld and WW chose to
pick the option that they would be. If we call it a 50/50 shot that both
could have picked the same thing at random, then it's not that telling.
But if we have 10 things that each have a 50% chance of matching, and
they all do, then it looks less like a totally random occurence.
The problem with the bullet thing in this case, is that if you look at
the collection of vampire vulnerabilities used in Underworld as a whole,
there are as many differences with WW as there are similarities.
Further, the writer (director? I don't recall which) has publicly stated
(before the case was filed) the criteria used to determine what parts of
the myth to use and which to ignore. Underworld uses those rules of
vampires that can be explained by pseudo-scientific terms and ignore
those that rely primarily on religious or symbolic meaning.
In UW sunlight works because of UV radiation, in WW UV doesn't work -
there is something magically delicious about sunlight that makes it work.
In UW bullets and knives work. We can say that they coppied WW, or we
can say that the decision was made to make vampires really tough, but not
immune to any type of damage magically.
In UW, vamires are reflected in mirrors, because light doesn't care if
you are animated dead or not.
In UW, they could have handled stakes "scientifically" in several
different ways. They could say that vampire hearts are vulnerable, and
piercing them with anything was harmful. Or they could say that vampires
were aleric to something physical in wood, and react badly to all wooden
intrusion into the body. Or they could just say that wooden stakes in
the heart is just a false myth. The movie chooses the last one, and
doesn't even mention stakes being useful for anything. This
"scientific" mindset doesn't allow one option, though, which is that you
would be stretching things pretty thin to have there be something special
about wood and vampire hearts that makes vampires become hopelessly
paralized if there is wood - and only wood - in their hearts. This is a
big difference between WW and UW, and not a similarity like WW claims.
Crosses and holy water don't work in UW for obvious reason, but in WW
they can be effective.
My purpose here is not to point out ways in which the two are different,
but instead to point out that the choices that UW made correspond pretty
directly to the reasoning they attributed to themselves. Both the
choices that are the same as WW and those that are different fit into
their own proposed mythology of "it's kinda scientific" much better than
with the idea that "they stole it from WW".
As too many coincidences straining credibility, some of the WW complaints
are valid, but when looked at as a whole there is a pattern to the UW
decisions that show they are not coincidences at all.
Robert Scott Clark
news:vm3ta6h...@corp.supernews.com:
What about the point where you say there is a character named "Vee" in
the movie, and someone walks in, punches you for being stupid, and then
takes all the money you have so far?
Bradd W. Szonye
> I am not speculating about how such cases work. I have stated my
> layman's opinion that some points in this case are spurious, trivial,
> irrelevant, whatever.
And your layman's opinion is worth the non-existent law degree it's
written on.
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> What about the point where you say there is a character named "Vee" in
> the movie, and someone walks in, punches you for being stupid, and then
> takes all the money you have so far?
You shoot that someone for being an ignorant bastard, of course.
--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kalima...@oakthorne.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
Robert Scott Clark
news:3F624208...@oakthorne.com:
> Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>>
>> What about the point where you say there is a character named "Vee" in
>> the movie, and someone walks in, punches you for being stupid, and then
>> takes all the money you have so far?
>
> You shoot that someone for being an ignorant bastard, of course.
>
Oh give me a fucking break. Having matching character names for very
similar characters is a big thing. Having a same character name for two
completely different characters is something less than that, but might be
meaningful if the name is rare. Having the same letter of the alphabet
used in both, and used to refer to two entirely different classes of things
(one a group of beings, the other a proper name for an individual)is
fucking absurd. I think WotC should sue every movie that has ever had a
character named DeeDee.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Sir Bob wrote:
>>
>> > The law cannot work the way that is being said.
>> > The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
>> > I admittedly do not know the wording of the law, but if
>> > it requires listing "even the smallest points of similarity",
>> > it is simply impossible to comply with.
>>
>> Not really - there *is* a point at which details are accepted as simply
>> trivial. "Trivial", however, is not the same as "obvious";
>
>True.
>But that's closer to what I said should be included than to
>what I'm being told should be included.
>I never claimed the obvious was not worth including.
>Just that the spurious wasn't.
>IOW, that which borders on "trivially obvious", or additionally,
>"points of similarity" that in no way add credibility.
Yeah, but then you're saying that "Both contain vampires" is a point
of similarity that should not be included. I'd daresay that if movie
didn't have any vampires in it, WW would have been laughed out of
court and the press release we'd be discussing is the one announcing
their bankruptcy due to the countersuit by Sony.
Yeah, both works have vampires. In and of itself, BFD. Lots of
creative works have vampires. But, saying that lays the foundation
for further points of similarity. If Underworld's two opposed races
of supernatural beings were pixies and yeti, WW would have a *much*
more difficult case to make.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Ed Chauvin IV
>>
>> >>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> >>>> You are wrong. Those things are absolutely necessary for the suit.
>> >>>> The smallest similarities must all be covered in this type of
>> >>>> dispute.
>>
>> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>> >>> I think both are partially true. It is likely in WW's best interest
>> >>> to include all points they can think of. It also adds zero
>> >>> credibility to include the spurious ones. "Both contain Vampires" is
>> >>> a similiarity. Your test says it should be included, mine says it
>> >>> should be included simply as context.
>>
>> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> >> Your test is irrelevant in a lawsuit.
>>
>> > Nah, yours is irrelevant period.
>>
>> How do you know?
>
>"Include all points of similarity"?
>That test results in inclusion of the absolutely trivial.
>"Both contain air."
>Seriously, instead of repeatedly saying "you're wrong",
>please explain why.
The problem here, Sorcier, is that the reason you're wrong is quite
simply "because you are wrong".
Stephenls
> Oh give me a fucking break. Having matching character names for very
> similar characters is a big thing. Having a same character name for two
> completely different characters is something less than that, but might be
> meaningful if the name is rare. Having the same letter of the alphabet
> used in both, and used to refer to two entirely different classes of things
> (one a group of beings, the other a proper name for an individual)is
> fucking absurd. I think WotC should sue every movie that has ever had a
> character named DeeDee.
Fortunately, DeeDee would find a way to break that lawsuit, just like
she breaks everything of Dexter's.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"Go then. There are other worlds than these."
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> Julie d'Aubigny <KaliMa...@oakthorne.com> wrote in
> news:3F624208...@oakthorne.com:
>
> > Robert Scott Clark wrote:
> >>
> >> What about the point where you say there is a character named "Vee" in
> >> the movie, and someone walks in, punches you for being stupid, and then
> >> takes all the money you have so far?
> >
> > You shoot that someone for being an ignorant bastard, of course.
>
> Oh give me a fucking break. Having matching character names for very
> similar characters is a big thing. Having a same character name for two
> completely different characters is something less than that, but might be
> meaningful if the name is rare. Having the same letter of the alphabet
> used in both, and used to refer to two entirely different classes of things
> (one a group of beings, the other a proper name for an individual)is
> fucking absurd. I think WotC should sue every movie that has ever had a
> character named DeeDee.
See, if the suit were over having a vampire character named Vee who is
nearly identical to a Vampire character named Vee, I'd agree with you.
But you're just cherry picking the claims for the ones that are easiest
to ridicule. As many people are, to be sure, but it's a pointless
exercise.
Robert Scott Clark
> Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>>
>> Julie d'Aubigny <KaliMa...@oakthorne.com> wrote in
>> news:3F624208...@oakthorne.com:
>>
>> > Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What about the point where you say there is a character named
>> >> "Vee" in the movie, and someone walks in, punches you for being
>> >> stupid, and then takes all the money you have so far?
>> >
>> > You shoot that someone for being an ignorant bastard, of course.
>>
>> Oh give me a fucking break. Having matching character names for very
>> similar characters is a big thing. Having a same character name for
>> two completely different characters is something less than that, but
>> might be meaningful if the name is rare. Having the same letter of
>> the alphabet used in both, and used to refer to two entirely
>> different classes of things (one a group of beings, the other a
>> proper name for an individual)is fucking absurd. I think WotC should
>> sue every movie that has ever had a character named DeeDee.
>
> See, if the suit were over having a vampire character named Vee who is
> nearly identical to a Vampire character named Vee, I'd agree with you.
No. If it were about 2 vampire characters both named "Vee", I would
accept that it had a place on the list - that it contributed in some
small way to showing similarity. Unfortunately that is not the
comparison being made. There is only one character named "Vee". You
should read the complaint more closely.
> But you're just cherry picking the claims for the ones that are
> easiest to ridicule.
No, read several of the posts I have made. I have ridiculed a majority
of the points. That's just one that is totally fucking absurd and
without any merit at all, as it shows no similarity at all.
>As many people are, to be sure, but it's a
> pointless exercise.
>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Robert Scott Clark
news:1t84mv8ru3ujhnjrf...@news.supernews.com:
> Mere moments before death, Sorcier hastily scrawled:
>>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>> >>>> You are wrong. Those things are absolutely necessary for the
>>> >>>> suit. The smallest similarities must all be covered in this
>>> >>>> type of dispute.
>>>
>>> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>>> >>> I think both are partially true. It is likely in WW's best
>>> >>> interest to include all points they can think of. It also adds
>>> >>> zero credibility to include the spurious ones. "Both contain
>>> >>> Vampires" is a similiarity. Your test says it should be
>>> >>> included, mine says it should be included simply as context.
>>>
>>> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>> >> Your test is irrelevant in a lawsuit.
>>>
>>> > Nah, yours is irrelevant period.
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>>"Include all points of similarity"?
>>That test results in inclusion of the absolutely trivial.
>>"Both contain air."
>>Seriously, instead of repeatedly saying "you're wrong",
>>please explain why.
>
> The problem here, Sorcier, is that the reason you're wrong is quite
> simply "because you are wrong".
Don't blame him if you misuse the word "all".
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > > The law cannot work the way that is being said.
> > > The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
> >
> > Which is pretty much the case.
>
> Can't be.
>
> > Every time they have a case like this,
> > there's a huge list of absurdly trivial points of similarity.
>
> Huge?
> Sure.
> All?
> Never.
You are nitpicking.
Bradd W. Szonye
Marc
> That's why individually the bullet thing is a valid point
Fine, then lets have Stellar Games sue White Wolf for stealing it from
them, since that happens in their Nightlife game. Sheesh.
--
Marc
13/09/2003 00:25:53
Web Log http://ka_haku.livejournal.com
Sorcier
>
> Robert Scott Clark wrote:
> >
> > Oh give me a fucking break. Having matching character names for very
> > similar characters is a big thing. Having a same character name for two
> > completely different characters is something less than that, but might be
> > meaningful if the name is rare. Having the same letter of the alphabet
> > used in both, and used to refer to two entirely different classes of things
> > (one a group of beings, the other a proper name for an individual)is
> > fucking absurd. I think WotC should sue every movie that has ever had a
> > character named DeeDee.
>
> See, if the suit were over having a vampire character named Vee who is
> nearly identical to a Vampire character named Vee, I'd agree with you.
> But you're just cherry picking the claims for the ones that are easiest
> to ridicule.
Or from my POV, pointing out the ones that _are_ ridiculous.
> As many people are, to be sure, but it's a pointless
> exercise.
Hardly.
If nothing else, it's fun.
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> > See, if the suit were over having a vampire character named Vee who is
> > nearly identical to a Vampire character named Vee, I'd agree with you.
>
> No. If it were about 2 vampire characters both named "Vee", I would
> accept that it had a place on the list - that it contributed in some
> small way to showing similarity. Unfortunately that is not the
> comparison being made. There is only one character named "Vee". You
> should read the complaint more closely.
You missed my point. If the suit were about one thing, and that thing
being two vampires with the same name, then I'd agree with you. But it's
not.
> > But you're just cherry picking the claims for the ones that are
> > easiest to ridicule.
>
> No, read several of the posts I have made. I have ridiculed a majority
> of the points. That's just one that is totally fucking absurd and
> without any merit at all, as it shows no similarity at all.
Like I said, you're cherry picking. And you are, of course, ridiculing
them individually, rather than as a whole. Why? Easier targets. I'm not
surprised, since you apparently could barely read my reply to you. I
imagine that sixty points in succession must be overwhelming.
Sorcier
>
> "Sorcier" <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
> news:3F6134...@cavtel.net...
>
> > The law cannot work the way that is being said.
> > The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
> > I admittedly do not know the wording of the law, but if
> > it requires listing "even the smallest points of similarity",
> > it is simply impossible to comply with.
>
> There *is* a reasonability standard, and you definitely do not want to piss
> off the judge by getting silly.
Which, to some extent, is where this tangent started. ;)
Some of us are pointing out what we feel is "silly".
Some are merely pointing out what we feel is "non-supportive".
BTW, your expanded wording has been much more helpful, Mal.
Thanks.
Sorcier
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> > I am not speculating about how such cases work. I have stated my
> > layman's opinion that some points in this case are spurious, trivial,
> > irrelevant, whatever.
>
> And your layman's opinion is worth the non-existent law degree it's
> written on.
Oh don't be an ass.
What's the point of a discussion group composed mainly of laymen
if our opinions are irrelevant?
If you really believe such nonsense, please stop posting about the case.
Sorcier
>
> Mere moments before death, Sorcier hastily scrawled:
>
> >That test results in inclusion of the absolutely trivial.
> >"Both contain air."
> >Seriously, instead of repeatedly saying "you're wrong",
> >please explain why.
>
> The problem here, Sorcier, is that the reason you're wrong is quite
> simply "because you are wrong".
Were that true, it should be demonstratable or explainable.
Mal, our believed resident expert, already backpedalled from
the simple "you are wrong".
Sorcier
>
> Mere moments before death, Sorcier hastily scrawled:
>
> of similarity that should not be included.
No, I was saying it IS needed as context.
Alone it is a point of very little support.
But they most show the similarities in the Vampires.
IIRC, all points that mention "both contain vampires" expand to
describe the nature of those vampires or the structure of their society.
WW did a good job of containing this necessary context without making
it a spurious point.
Sorcier
Well, duh!
The only reason I was given for being "wrong" is that nit!
If the nit isn't valid, then I'm not wrong. ;)
David Johnston
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
Zoran Bekric
screenwriting mailing list) and I just thought I'd share my two cents.
The consensus around the office (including me) is that White Wolf has a case
here. Specifically in terms of Trade Dress.
From <http://www.sis.gov.eg/intellectual/html/1002>:
> Trade dress is the packaging of a product that contributes to its overall
> commercial impression in the market. This generally includes not only the
> marks that may appear on packages but the form of the package itself and any
> designs or lettering contained on the packaging. Developing distinctive trade
> dress is an important element of a marketing program since an easily
> recognizable package aids consumers in locating a particular product.
>
> Trade dress infringement is an act of unfair competition. Consumers are
> harmed by trade dress infringement because they are misled as to the source or
> nature of the goods they are purchasing. Protecting against the. misleading or
> confusing imitation of trade dress is important for the protection of
> consumers. Even sophisticated consumers may be misled by imitative trade
> dress, but consumers who cannot read, or who cannot read the language of the
> label, are particularly vulnerable to deception.
The movie "Underworld" looks and awful lot like the World of Darkness. Many
people have said that the first thing they thought of when they saw the
trailer was White Wolf's games. The Trade Dress of the film is similar
enough to that which White Wolf employs on their World of Darkness games
that confusion is not only possible, but does happen.
In White Wolf's complaint, this issue is addressed in points 25 and 45:
> 25. White Wolf's vampires exist in The World of Darkness - a
> world created by White Wolf that is best described as
> "gothic-punk" - it is the mood, the setting and the
> attitude of the inhabitants of the World of Darkness.
And:
> 45. Defendants Sony Pictures, Lakeshore Entertainment and
> Screen Gems recently announced the upcoming release of
> Underworld - a major motion picture set in a dark, gothic-
> punk setting.
Beyond that, there's the issue of the video game:
> 31. A second Vampire: The Masquerade inspired videogame, titled
> Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, is in development
> using Valve Software's technology and game engine first
> used in its videogame Half-Life II.
>
> 32. White Wolf and its partners announced the upcoming release
> of its second Vampire: The Masquerade inspired videogame,
> with a demonstration, at E3 - the Electronic Entertainment
> Exposition at the Los Angeles Convention Center on May 13,
> 2003.
And:
> 51. Defendant Sony Pictures has also announced on its
> Underworld website (www.sonypictures.com/movies/underworld/)
> the upcoming release of a related video game - Underworld:
> Bloodlines, which is based on the game engine of Valve
> Software's videogame Half-Life.
>
> 52. The current version of the Defendant's videogame can be
> downloaded directly from Sony Pictures' website.
No-one's going to refer to either of these games by their full titles,
they're just going to call each "Bloodlines". So we have two different
games, both called "Bloodlines" set in a dark, gothic-punk world with
vampires and werewolves. I really don't see how market place confusion can
be avoided. That's why I think White Wolf's complaint is careful to
establish the time and place their product so as to establish that their
version came first.
In many ways the weakest part of the claim is the "sixty points of
similarity" -- especially since White Wolf chose to pad out the points with
such nonsense as:
> 56. In the World of Darkness, some vampires are capable of
> amazing speed. In Underworld, some vampires move with
> amazing speed.
>
> 57. In the World of Darkness, vampires "have the strength of
> ten men." In Underworld, vampires "have the strength of ten
> men."
And:
> 97. In the World of Darkness, silver weapons harm werewolves.
> In Underworld, silver weapons harm werewolves.
Of course, some of my previous interactions with people associated with
White Wolf has shown me that the company seems to have a culture that holds
research and fact-checking in active contempt. So it's possible that the
people at White Wolf simply don't know enough to realise how common some of
these elements are in the history of the genre.
I mean:
> 86. In the World of Darkness, there exists a clan of
> aristocratic, ruling vampires (known as "Ventrue".) In
> Underworld, the ruling vampires are aristocratic, from
> noble houses, living in an elegant Victorian mansion.
If in "Underworld" the ruling vampires were called "Ventrue", White Wolf
might have a point. As it is -- do they really think that aristocratic
vampires with noble titles such as, I don't know, "Count", living in
Victorian mansions is something they made up out of whole cloth? Apparently
so. May I suggest that someone at White Wolf go to a library and find a book
by Bram Stoker called "Dracula". They may well be shocked -- shocked! -- at
what they find.
And, of course, there's the double bind:
> 83. In the World of Darkness, werewolves and vampires fight
> with human weapons, such as pistols and knives. In
> Underworld, werewolves and vampires fight with human
> weapons, such as pistols and knives.
And:
> 95. In the World of Darkness, werewolves and vampires can
> injure or kill each other with their teeth and claws. In
> Underworld, werewolves and vampires can injure or kill each
> other with their teeth and claws.
So, if they fight armed, they're infringing on one count, if they fight
unarmed, they're infringing on the other. Trying to have it both ways like
this suggests that White Wolf's complaint is less than honourable.
And, of course we have:
> 26. The combination of gothic and punk lifestyles work together
> to encourage creativity and imagination. They avoid the
> normalcy of the status quo and the mundane, which
> suffocates imagination.
>
> 27. For the Gothic-Punk way of life, emotions rule actions and
> passion overrides logic and reason.
The first point is just pretentious and insulting -- and betrays a profound
ignorance since the vast majority of imaginative work has been produced
outside the gothic and punk lifestyles. Sorry, but that's just historical
fact. I don't think any lifestyle has an exclusive claim on creativity and
imagination. It seems there are no elites.
As for the second point, I'm really have no idea why White Wolf thinks that
pointing out that the World of Darkness and the games set in it are built on
a form of arrested development is either pertinent to the case or something
they want to be saying out loud.
Regards,
Zoran
________________________________________________________________________
"The only subjects worth discussing are politics, sex,
and religion," Dussio said. "Which would you prefer?"
from "The Widow's Son"
by Robert Anton Wilson
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> I am not speculating about how such cases work. I have stated my
>>> layman's opinion that some points in this case are spurious,
>>> trivial, irrelevant, whatever.
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> And your layman's opinion is worth the non-existent law degree it's
>> written on.
> Oh don't be an ass.
You first.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> The problem here, Sorcier, is that the reason you're wrong is quite
>> simply "because you are wrong".
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> Were that true, it should be demonstratable or explainable.
It is, but since you're incapable of reading a simple English sentence
without re-defining half the words in it, it's pointless to explain it
to you.
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> Or from my POV, pointing out the ones that _are_ ridiculous.
Only if you interpret them in a "special" way, sure.
Seebs
Julie d'Aubigny <KaliMa...@oakthorne.com> wrote:
>Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>> No. If it were about 2 vampire characters both named "Vee", I would
>> accept that it had a place on the list - that it contributed in some
>> small way to showing similarity. Unfortunately that is not the
>> comparison being made. There is only one character named "Vee". You
>> should read the complaint more closely.
>You missed my point. If the suit were about one thing, and that thing
>being two vampires with the same name, then I'd agree with you. But it's
>not.
Imagine that I write a story in which there is a major character, with a
number of identifiable traits, whose name is "Zachary". If someone else,
who has probably read my story, does a story with a character very much
like mine, only he's called "Z", it sure is suspicious.
-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Or from my POV, pointing out the ones that _are_ ridiculous.
Julie d'Aubigny <KaliMa...@oakthorne.com> wrote:
> Only if you interpret them in a "special" way, sure.
That's his "specialty"!
Zoran Bekric
(ed...@wherethefuckaremypants.com) wrote in
<1t84mv8ru3ujhnjrf...@news.supernews.com>:
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>
>> "Include all points of similarity"?
>> That test results in inclusion of the absolutely trivial.
>> "Both contain air."
>> Seriously, instead of repeatedly saying "you're wrong",
>> please explain why.
>
> The problem here, Sorcier, is that the reason you're wrong is quite
> simply "because you are wrong".
If he's wrong, then presumably you (or someone else) could cite the
appropriate Statute requiring that such a suit "include all points of
similarity". Otherwise how is it a requirement?
If it is an actual requirement, as Sorcier pointed out, the document
wouldn't be just 64 pages long, it would be many millions of pages long and
would fill several thick volumes. As it is, the document is only 64 pages
long, meaning that White Wolf left out billions of points of similarity to
concentrate only on those they considered significant in some way.
So, perhaps, the question when it comes to points like:
> 97. In the World of Darkness, silver weapons harm werewolves.
> In Underworld, silver weapons harm werewolves.
Is "Why is this significant enough to list?" I mean to many people it comes
across as having more in common with the billions of other points of
similarity that aren't listed than it does as any sort of infringement.
Werewolves being vulnerable to silver is a commonplace element of the genre,
after all, found in any number of other stories, films, comics, etc. It's
part of the "common knowledge" that everyone brings to reading, viewing or
playing in the genre.
So, why does White Wolf think it's significant enough to include?
Zoran Bekric
<3f62c709$0$96347$3c09...@news.plethora.net>:
> Imagine that I write a story in which there is a major character, with a
> number of identifiable traits, whose name is "Zachary". If someone else,
> who has probably read my story, does a story with a character very much
> like mine, only he's called "Z", it sure is suspicious.
Depends on the "identifiable traits". If they are that "Zachary" is "master
of the winds from the west" and "Z" is "lord of the western wind" it would
look pretty bad.
However, the existance of Zephyrus, the Greek god of the west wind, would
predate both examples and make it possible that both are a case of parallel
development deriving from a common source.
Near as I can tell, vampires referring to one another as "V" would be like
that. And a character called "Vee" might have less to do with the fact he or
she is a vampire and more to do with having a first name like "Virgil" or
"Vivian" or something. A number of my friends refer to me as just "Zee", so
being reduced to an initial is not that uncommon -- especially if it's an
uncommon initial.
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> In article <3F62A4B9...@oakthorne.com>,
> Julie d'Aubigny <KaliMa...@oakthorne.com> wrote:
> >Robert Scott Clark wrote:
> >> No. If it were about 2 vampire characters both named "Vee", I would
> >> accept that it had a place on the list - that it contributed in some
> >> small way to showing similarity. Unfortunately that is not the
> >> comparison being made. There is only one character named "Vee". You
> >> should read the complaint more closely.
>
> >You missed my point. If the suit were about one thing, and that thing
> >being two vampires with the same name, then I'd agree with you. But it's
> >not.
>
> Imagine that I write a story in which there is a major character, with a
> number of identifiable traits, whose name is "Zachary". If someone else,
> who has probably read my story, does a story with a character very much
> like mine, only he's called "Z", it sure is suspicious.
Of course, if the name is the only identifiable trait, which was my
point, that's pretty ridiculous.
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> > Sorcier wrote:
> >> Or from my POV, pointing out the ones that _are_ ridiculous.
>
> Julie d'Aubigny <KaliMa...@oakthorne.com> wrote:
> > Only if you interpret them in a "special" way, sure.
>
> That's his "specialty"!
Apparently so.
Robert Scott Clark
news:1lvxedk8eta26.1x2y0kipdntpw$.d...@40tude.net:
> On 12 Sep 2003 13:13:02 -0500, Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>
>> That's why individually the bullet thing is a valid point
>
> Fine, then lets have Stellar Games sue White Wolf for stealing it
> from
> them, since that happens in their Nightlife game. Sheesh.
If there are many different points of similarity, then maybe they should.
Hong Ooi
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:23:22 GMT, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> It isn't actually a law. It's just a principle that the more things
>> you can find that sort of match, the better your odds of winning
>> the case. It's the other side's job to then point out the differences,
>> like in Underworld, lycanthropy is a contagious condition, and in
>> Underworld, vampires and werewolves used to be chums.
>
> This resembles negotiations. You also put more than you want, so you have
>giveaways, meaning, "Okay, we can live without having that." Basically, the
>people who belittle these practices have never gone through the events in
>question. One year I had to negotiate a new contract for the union I
>belonged to at the time. You think WW looks silly...
It's almost like playing an RPG, in a way.
--
Hong Ooi | "Does *anyone* at WOTC bother to
ho...@zipworld.com.au | _think_ when making housecat stats?"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- MSB
Sydney, Australia |
Robert Scott Clark
> Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>>
>> > See, if the suit were over having a vampire character named Vee who
>> > is nearly identical to a Vampire character named Vee, I'd agree
>> > with you.
>>
>> No. If it were about 2 vampire characters both named "Vee", I would
>> accept that it had a place on the list - that it contributed in some
>> small way to showing similarity. Unfortunately that is not the
>> comparison being made. There is only one character named "Vee". You
>> should read the complaint more closely.
>
> You missed my point. If the suit were about one thing, and that thing
> being two vampires with the same name, then I'd agree with you. But
> it's not.
But that one is totally invalid. It isn't a similarity at all. Not
even a small one. Saying the "Vee" thing is a point of similarity is
like saying the Bible Code is valid. Saying that there is at least one
word in UW that begins with the exact same letter as a TOTALLY UNRELATED
word in WW and that both are abbreviated in the same way isn't a
similarity. You would be able to do that with any two works of
sufficient length.
Let's say you were at a dinner party, and you mentioned, "I have a
brother named "Tiberius", but we used to call him "Tee" for short". And
the person you were talking to said, "Wow, that's a coincidence, I used
to live in Toronto." You would likely reply, "How is that a
coincidence?" To which he would answer, "Well, we always used to call
the city "Big T". You see? "Tee"/"BigT". Crazy coincidence, ain't it?"
At this point, you don't become amazed by the coincidence, you nod
slowly and start backing away, hoping he doesn't follow, or spaz out and
hurt someone.
There is a difference between lots of small similarities adding to a
larger one, and something that is totally contrived that no number of
them could ever have meaning.
>
>> > But you're just cherry picking the claims for the ones that are
>> > easiest to ridicule.
>>
>> No, read several of the posts I have made. I have ridiculed a
>> majority of the points. That's just one that is totally fucking
>> absurd and without any merit at all, as it shows no similarity at
>> all.
>
> Like I said, you're cherry picking. And you are, of course, ridiculing
> them individually, rather than as a whole.
No, actually, you are incorrect again. I took several related
similarities and viewed them collectively and described why there was a
better explanation for that group of similarities than theft. But then
you don't seem to be willing to admit that maybe WW is wrong.
This one particular "similarity" I view individually, because it's
totally fucking invalid, and not even a similarity.
>Why? Easier targets. I'm not
> surprised, since you apparently could barely read my reply to you. I
> imagine that sixty points in succession must be overwhelming.
>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Robert Scott Clark
@news.plethora.net:
> In article <3F62A4B9...@oakthorne.com>,
> Julie d'Aubigny <KaliMa...@oakthorne.com> wrote:
>>Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>>> No. If it were about 2 vampire characters both named "Vee", I would
>>> accept that it had a place on the list - that it contributed in some
>>> small way to showing similarity. Unfortunately that is not the
>>> comparison being made. There is only one character named "Vee". You
>>> should read the complaint more closely.
>
>>You missed my point. If the suit were about one thing, and that thing
>>being two vampires with the same name, then I'd agree with you. But it's
>>not.
>
> Imagine that I write a story in which there is a major character, with a
> number of identifiable traits, whose name is "Zachary". If someone else,
> who has probably read my story, does a story with a character very much
> like mine, only he's called "Z", it sure is suspicious.
>
> -s
Have you read the complaint? There are not two characters named "Vee". In
UW there is a character called "Vee". In WW, apparently as no one I have
mentioned this to has ever seen this used in any WW product, vampires
sometimes refer to one another by "Vee" used as a shortened form of the
word "vampire". One is a shortened form of a proper name, the other a
shortened form of a general term. Further, the complaint says nothing
about "Vee" being used in the short story, only that is used somewhere in
the mountain of WW source material.
Robert Scott Clark
news:3F622D...@telusplanet.net:
No, he apparently knows what the word "all" means. If that word was not
what was meant to be used, then someone should re-state using the correct
word.
If the word is not "all", then there is some type of qualifier determining
what must (I say "must" here instead of "should", as the statement was
about things being legally required, not what makes for a good case - must)
be listed and what need not be.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in
> news:3F622D...@telusplanet.net:
>
> > Sorcier wrote:
> >>
> >> David Johnston wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > The law cannot work the way that is being said.
> >> > > The result would be nigh-infinite points of similarity.
> >> >
> >> > Which is pretty much the case.
> >>
> >> Can't be.
> >>
> >> > Every time they have a case like this,
> >> > there's a huge list of absurdly trivial points of similarity.
> >>
> >> Huge?
> >> Sure.
> >> All?
> >> Never.
> >
> > You are nitpicking.
> >
> >
> >
>
> No, he apparently knows what the word "all" means.
But apparently neither of you know that not every word in a newsgroup
posting is necessarily chosen with rigorous legalistic precision.
Robert Scott Clark
@telusplanet.net:
Then why don't you go back to the rest of my post that you snipped and
elaborate. If indeed there is a requirement for what points are "legally
required" to be listed, what EXACTLY is the qualification that determines
this?
Being sloppy with language is one thing. Refusing to clarify when asked
directly is quite another.
And it's not exactly like "all" has a lot of ambiguity in the meaning -
it's very clear cut.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Then why don't you go back to the rest of my post that you snipped and
> elaborate.
> If indeed there is a requirement for what points are "legally
> required" to be listed, what EXACTLY is the qualification that
> determines this?
> Being sloppy with language is one thing.
> Refusing to clarify when asked directly is quite another.
> And it's not exactly like "all" has a lot of ambiguity in the meaning
> - it's very clear cut.
I fixed your post. When you're picking nits and playing semantic games,
you're supposed to put each sentence in its own paragraph. Sorcier
always does.
David Johnston
Anything the judge might find to be a distinguishing characteristic
of similarily between two works is going to be concluded because
including all such characteristics increases your chances over just
including some.
David Johnston
>
> Anything the judge might find to be a distinguishing characteristic
> of similarily between two works is going to be concluded because
> including all such characteristics increases your chances over just
> including some.
Gosh. Who would have guessed that going 20 hours without sleep might
affect my ability to post coherently?
Robert Scott Clark
So, it is legally required that the lawyer reads the judges mind?
David Johnston
> >
> > Anything the judge might find to be a distinguishing characteristic
> > of similarily between two works is going to be concluded because
> > including all such characteristics increases your chances over just
> > including some.
>
> So, it is legally required that the lawyer reads the judges mind?
>
Of course it is! Trying guess at what the judge (or jury) will
think and taking actions based on that guess is much
of what a trial lawyer does. What the hell else is he supposed
to do in a case where he is asking for a judgement that can not
be objective by it's nature?
Robert Scott Clark
> Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>> >
>> > Anything the judge might find to be a distinguishing characteristic
>> > of similarily between two works is going to be concluded because
>> > including all such characteristics increases your chances over just
>> > including some.
>>
>> So, it is legally required that the lawyer reads the judges mind?
>>
>
> Of course it is! Trying guess at what the judge (or jury) will
> think and taking actions based on that guess is much
> of what a trial lawyer does.
No, that is what a lawyer does to be effective, which is different than
what he is legally required to do. The later is what was claimed.
Apparently, the word "all" is not the only phrase used incorrectly.
The statement was made that the lawyer(s) writing up the complaint was
legally required to include all points of similarity. It is now obvious
that this says something significantly different than what was intended
to be said. Now given that I cannot read minds here, would you like to
clarify what was actually meant by those words, because I don't know?
> What the hell else is he supposed
> to do in a case where he is asking for a judgement that can not
> be objective by it's nature?
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Sorcier
>
> The movie "Underworld" looks and awful lot like the World of Darkness. Many
> people have said that the first thing they thought of when they saw the
> trailer was White Wolf's games.
I haven't seen the trailer but I thought that on hearing the plot
summary
in various "movie preview" magazines articles and web sites.
As I recall, WW claims to have recieved numerous letters asking about
"their" upcoming movie.
While I'd doubt that Sony cares about capturing a gamer audience,
I'd not be suprised if either the screenwriter(s) or the director
knew of WoD or Collin's novel and wanted to do something similar.
The similarities to the novel are, IMO, the most damning in the suit,
and the least likely to believably have an independent derivation.
> The Trade Dress of the film is similar
> enough to that which White Wolf employs on their World of Darkness games
> that confusion is not only possible, but does happen.
Agreed.
> In many ways the weakest part of the claim is the "sixty points of
> similarity" -- especially since White Wolf chose to pad out the points with
> such nonsense as:
Now you're in trouble. ;)
> Of course, some of my previous interactions with people associated with
> White Wolf has shown me that the company seems to have a culture that holds
> research and fact-checking in active contempt. So it's possible that the
> people at White Wolf simply don't know enough to realise how common some of
> these elements are in the history of the genre.
Hm, I wonder.
I don't know anyone still at the company, but the ones I did, while
quite
insular, were well read.
They also had a broad, albeit frequently niche, knowledge of pop
culture.
> And, of course, there's the double bind:
> > 83. In the World of Darkness, werewolves and vampires fight
> > with human weapons, such as pistols and knives. In
> > Underworld, werewolves and vampires fight with human
> > weapons, such as pistols and knives.
>
> And:
> > 95. In the World of Darkness, werewolves and vampires can
> > injure or kill each other with their teeth and claws. In
> > Underworld, werewolves and vampires can injure or kill each
> > other with their teeth and claws.
>
> So, if they fight armed, they're infringing on one count, if they fight
> unarmed, they're infringing on the other. Trying to have it both ways like
> this suggests that White Wolf's complaint is less than honourable.
There is a catch on these that I think some are missing.
Laypeople don't usually envision gun toting Vampires and Were's.
So that's a point of similarity.
Likewise Vampires using theit teeth in actual combat isn't that
common to the public imagination.
(Although more and more sources are using it.)
Vampires with claws are even less "archetypcial".
Citing that Weres can be injured by Vampires, when popular lore
says they can only be harmed by silver is also a reasonable point
of similarity.
Or that Vampires can be harmed by Weres despite all the various
popularly ascribed vampiric immunities is reasonable.
Stating that Weres have claws and teeth is somewhat spurious though.
Line 95 simply would be helped by more verbiage.
> And, of course we have:
> > 26. The combination of gothic and punk lifestyles work together
> > to encourage creativity and imagination. They avoid the
> > normalcy of the status quo and the mundane, which
> > suffocates imagination.
> >
> > 27. For the Gothic-Punk way of life, emotions rule actions and
> > passion overrides logic and reason.
>
> The first point is just pretentious and insulting -- and betrays a profound
> ignorance since the vast majority of imaginative work has been produced
> outside the gothic and punk lifestyles. Sorry, but that's just historical
> fact. I don't think any lifestyle has an exclusive claim on creativity and
> imagination. It seems there are no elites.
>
> As for the second point, I'm really have no idea why White Wolf thinks that
> pointing out that the World of Darkness and the games set in it are built on
> a form of arrested development is either pertinent to the case or something
> they want to be saying out loud.
My take is that those two lines were included to establish the feel of
WoD.
That feel looks to also permeate Underworld.
But, yeah, WW just couldn't help falling into default pretentious poseur
mode,
could they? ;)
Sorcier
>
> Sorcier wrote:
> >
> > Or from my POV, pointing out the ones that _are_ ridiculous.
>
> Only if you interpret them in a "special" way, sure.
Define "special".
I defined one point as ridiculous because it simply amounts
to "both worlds have tough females".
Robert defined many others as ridiculous.
Most of which I saw some small merit in despite the seeming
surface silliness of them.
But from a lay view (which could be your meaning of "special")
they can seem quite ridiculous.
I'd ultimately submit, that if I've pegged your definition, that
the legal view is the "special" case as it applies only in a specific
forum.
Robert's way is the _standard_ way of defining "ridiculous".
And yes this has been another nitpick for those keeping count.
Both on my part AND Julie's.
Seebs
The question is not just "could this only have happened were Item B a copy of Item A".
It is also useful to ask the question "had you copied Item A, would you have likely
included this".
A lot of the "questionable" similarities fit that test; they're mentioned because,
*were* they different, they would argue *against* a copy.
Sorcier
>
> > Well, duh!
> > The only reason I was given for being "wrong" is that nit!
> > If the nit isn't valid, then I'm not wrong. ;)
>
> Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
Oh gawd, now they've got you doing it too!
What was my conclusion?
What was my premise?
How does one not follow from the other?
All you have done here is say "You are wrong."
No one has yet elaborated on _where_ I am wrong.
When facts attacking the supposed errors in my opinion
have been presented, I have generally _agreed_ with those
facts, and suspect that some of you think I'm making a claim
that I am not.
There seems to be something that a pocket of resistance here
resents about me labelling a point or so from WW as "spurious"
despite my avowed position that the suit has merit.
Odd.
Sorcier
>
> Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> >>> I am not speculating about how such cases work. I have stated my
> >>> layman's opinion that some points in this case are spurious,
> >>> trivial, irrelevant, whatever.
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> And your layman's opinion is worth the non-existent law degree it's
> >> written on.
>
> > Oh don't be an ass.
Whoa, dude, if you want to start it, don't ask me to stop it! ;P
Sorcier
>
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in
> news:3F622D...@telusplanet.net:
>
>
> No, he apparently knows what the word "all" means. If that word was not
> what was meant to be used, then someone should re-state using the correct
> word.
As Mal has nicely done.
Follow the example of your own hero people.
There is a reason you look up to him. ;)
Sorcier
>
> But apparently neither of you know that not every word in a newsgroup
> posting is necessarily chosen with rigorous legalistic precision.
We know that.
But we aren't going to argue against what yoy "actually meant".
To do so we'd need be psychic.
We can only serious argue for or against what you post.
Additionally, we're getting hit for not understanding the legal
technicalities but you wish to remain free from using legalistic
clarity to argue back?
That's a serious foul.
Chose a battleground that you'll let us both on.
We've done so, and will not play by your "one rule for the
defense, one rule for the prosecution" silliness.
Sorcier
Heh.
I wondered if anyone would ever pick up on the reason for that. ;)
Sorcier
>
> > Anything the judge might find to be a distinguishing characteristic
> > of similarily between two works is going to be concluded because
> > including all such characteristics increases your chances over just
> > including some.
>
> So, it is legally required that the lawyer reads the judges mind?
A) Notice Dave just added a clarifier! Cool.
B) Of course it is, Robert. Sorry. ;(
Robert Scott Clark
You should be numbering them as well.
And don't forget to preface each post with some bragging about how cool you
are.
David Johnston
> > Of course it is! Trying guess at what the judge (or jury) will
> > think and taking actions based on that guess is much
> > of what a trial lawyer does.
>
> No, that is what a lawyer does to be effective, which is different than
> what he is legally required to do. The later is what was claimed.
Right. You only have to do it if you want to win. If you want to lose,
you don't have to.
Robert Scott Clark
@telusplanet.net:
Which doesn't answer my question. Stop dodging the question. I have asked
it as clearly as possible, yet you still avoid answering.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in news:3F63CA7A.52C3
> @telusplanet.net:
>
> > Robert Scott Clark wrote:
> >> > Of course it is! Trying guess at what the judge (or jury) will
> >> > think and taking actions based on that guess is much
> >> > of what a trial lawyer does.
> >>
> >> No, that is what a lawyer does to be effective, which is different than
> >> what he is legally required to do. The later is what was claimed.
> >
> > Right. You only have to do it if you want to win. If you want to lose,
> > you don't have to.
>
> Which doesn't answer my question. Stop dodging the question. I have asked
> it as clearly as possible, yet you still avoid answering.
I did answer. You don't have to do it if you don't want to win.
Robert Scott Clark
No, that doesn't answer the question. You answered a related, but
tangential question.
Sorcier said...
" I think both are partially true.
It is likely in WW's best interest to include all points they can
think of.
It also adds zero credibility to include the spurious ones.
"Both contain Vampires" is a similiarity.
Your test says it should be included, mine says it should be
included simply as context."
Sir Bob said, and I quote...
"You don't get it: they are *legally required* to list even the smallest
points of similarity. Proper procedure demands it. It's just the way
the law works, regardless of what any individual thinks of it."
Now, first off, I was mistaken in quoting the word "all", which was
apparently added by Sorcier. But that doesn't change the apparent
meaning of the above Bob quote. You seem to be admitting that either
"*legally required*" or "even the smallest" is technically incorrect.
What I want to know is what would you substitute in their places to make
the statement correct. Don't talk about what it takes to win a case,
just tell me - with my inability to read minds and tendency to take words
way too literally - what he actually meant to say with those words. All
I'm asking for is a simple translation from "whee this is usenet, I can
use words however the fuck I want" language to "let's be precise for a
change" language.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I fixed your post. When you're picking nits and playing semantic games,
>> you're supposed to put each sentence in its own paragraph. Sorcier
>> always does.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
> Heh.
> I wondered if anyone would ever pick up on the reason for that. ;)
You're a freak?
Bradd W. Szonye
>>>> And your layman's opinion is worth the non-existent law degree it's
>>>> written on.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> wrote:
>>> Oh don't be an ass.
Sorcier <sNoEr...@cavtel.net> also wrote:
> Whoa, dude, if you want to start it, don't ask me to stop it! ;P
Talking to yourself now?
Bradd W. Szonye
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>> Of course it is! Trying guess at what the judge (or jury) will
>> think and taking actions based on that guess is much
>> of what a trial lawyer does.
> No, that is what a lawyer does to be effective, which is different
> than what he is legally required to do.
IIRC, most lawyers are legally required to argue their cases as
effectively as possible. Therefore, those are actually the same thing.
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:slrnbm7pf7.r...@szonye.com:
In agreement with you, they are permitted (as far as I, a mere non-lawyer,
a wriggly worm, the lowest form of life, one who has not been admitted
before the Bar, thus am not worthy to speak on matters of law nor even
vote for legislators, for only the all-holy Barristers have the Gnosis) to
spin the story however suits their clients, so long as they do not
outright lie and so long as they do not conceal information that is
explicitly demanded by the Court or by the procedures of that state.
Christopher Adams
> Sorcier wrote:
>> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>>
>>> I fixed your post. When you're picking nits and playing semantic games,
>>> you're supposed to put each sentence in its own paragraph. Sorcier
>>> always does.
>>
>> I wondered if anyone would ever pick up on the reason for that. ;)
>
> You're a freak?
Fuckwit, Bradd. Fuckwit.
--
Christopher Adams - SUTEKH Functions Officer 2003
When I awakened, I was not as I had been.
"A portfolio of erotic 'Buffy' fan-fiction does not a writer make."
- Neil, www.goats.com
Bradd W. Szonye
>>>> I fixed your post. When you're picking nits and playing semantic
>>>> games, you're supposed to put each sentence in its own paragraph.
>>>> Sorcier always does.
>> Sorcier wrote:
>>> Heh.
>>> I wondered if anyone would ever pick up on the reason for that. ;)
>>
>> You're a freak?
Christopher Adams wrote:
> Fuckwit, Bradd. Fuckwit.
What, I'm not allowed to be charitable when I'm insulting people?
David Johnston
>
> Now, first off, I was mistaken in quoting the word "all", which was
> apparently added by Sorcier. But that doesn't change the apparent
> meaning of the above Bob quote. You seem to be admitting that either
> "*legally required*" or "even the smallest" is technically incorrect.
> What I want to know is what would you substitute in their places to make
> the statement correct.
"If you fail to list even the smaller points of similarity, you are
not putting your best effort behind ensuring that your client will
win. That could open you up to sanctions (for violating the
legal canon of ethics) and even legal malpractice suits."
Satisfied?
Christopher Adams
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>> Fuckwit, Bradd. Fuckwit.
>
> What, I'm not allowed to be charitable when I'm insulting people?
To quote you from another post:
Who are you, and what have you done with my RGFD?!
Julie d'Aubigny
Please be. "Fuckwit" is overused. Christopher has his heart in the right
place, though. I can't argue that.
--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kalima...@oakthorne.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
Bradd W. Szonye
> "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>>
>> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> >>>> I fixed your post. When you're picking nits and playing semantic
>> >>>> games, you're supposed to put each sentence in its own paragraph.
>> >>>> Sorcier always does.
>>
>> >> Sorcier wrote:
>> >>> Heh.
>> >>> I wondered if anyone would ever pick up on the reason for that. ;)
>> >>
>> >> You're a freak?
>>
>> Christopher Adams wrote:
>> > Fuckwit, Bradd. Fuckwit.
>>
>> What, I'm not allowed to be charitable when I'm insulting people?
>
> Please be. "Fuckwit" is overused. Christopher has his heart in the right
> place, though. I can't argue that.
Heh.