Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sourclams wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I personally believe that "space marine" has well and truly left the dock... it's a very generic term.

It would seem that the expert agrees with you.

Except that's not exactly how the testimony from the expert reads in the quoted statement. It's not the term itself; but rather the concept.

Q. I understand. You've already testified you don't believe there's any possible
original expression of a Space Marines future warrior that's possible since 1990.
A. Right.

A "term" is, literally, meaningless without an associated concept.

Additionally, the expert witness doesn't address the "concept" at all, merely the "expression" of the concept of a "Space Marine."

Trasvi wrote:
Kind of agree with GW's lawyer there. Grindley was very much of the opinion "there is nothing new under the sun"

Q. I understand. You've already testified you don't believe there's any possible
original expression of a Space Marines future warrior that's possible since 1990.
A. Right.

While that may be true from a literary or philosophical standpoint, it doesn't seem very conducive to legal debate.

It is highly conducive to legal debate. The debate will not show GW's claimed unique IP in a good light. That is why GW want to exclude him.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I personally believe that "space marine" has well and truly left the dock... it's a very generic term.

It would seem that the expert agrees with you.

Except that's not exactly how the testimony from the expert reads in the quoted statement. It's not the term itself; but rather the concept.

It would seem that the expert disagrees with you.

GW has made a second Daubert motion, or a motion to exclude expert tetimony, so referred to due to the case law from which such motion practice is derived.

A Daubert motion seeks to exclude an expert's testimony because it does not qualify as expert testimony, i.e the expert is not an expert. GW is saying Grindley has done thins wrong in formulating his expert opinion.

This is interesting because I'm not sure how common it s to have an expert on copyright infringement. This lawsuit is breaking some new ground, partly because of how expansive the claims are. It is also interesting because the Judge already said that Merrett could testify about similarities between the accused works and the asserted works, that is, the judge has said essentially that lay opinion is okay when comparing one work of art to another, which is substantively what Dr. Grindley is doing.

In other words, GW argued, and won, to have Merrett compare asserted and accused works and opine that one is a copy of the other. Now, GW s attempting to exclude substantively similar testimony because it does not qualify as expert testimony. However, if one follows GW's own logic, and rulings by the judge, Dr. Grindley need not even be an expert to give his testimony. It s a pile of Lols.

weeble1000 wrote:

In other words, GW argued, and won, to have Merrett compare asserted and accused works and opine that one is a copy of the other. Now, GW s attempting to exclude substantively similar testimony because it does not qualify as expert testimony. However, if one follows GW's own logic, and rulings by the judge, Dr. Grindley need not even be an expert to give his testimony. It s a pile of Lols.

So wait. . . your telling me that GW is saying that they are right and everyone else is wrong! I am SHOCKED, APPAL. . . wait. . . nope that sounds about right.

GW is still playing the bully in this. Like they do every time. Should they lose I HOPE they take a step back and reassess their position a bit more.

weeble1000 wrote:
... if one follows GW's own logic...

Please don't.

It's just more fodder for an appeal, most likely. Given the way the court ruled on Merrett, this motion will be shot down, which gives GW another excuse to cry to the appellate court about the mean old judge picking on them in case of a disastrous jury verdict.

"We want all experts removed from the trial, as facts are irrelevant to this case and could only harm the plaintiff."

"We the Jury Find all Games Workshop's Copyrights and Trademarks either invalid or in the public domain."

As there is no summary in the OP and I've lost where it was in the thread, could someone remind me what the new (final) trial date is?

Iirc 6/17/13 but it may have been July instead.

I think it is this date:

Based upon the parties' joint request as expressed in their letter to the Court, the trial date of 4/22/13 is vacated and reset to 6/3/13 at 9:45 a.m. The parties are advised that the trial date will not be continued again, and that they are expected to make appropriate arrangements to try the case starting on that date irrespective of what contingencies may occur between now and then.

There we go. I was off by 2 weeks. Even sooner!!!

Anyone wanna take bets on GW trying for a push back again, regardless of what the court has said?

That's a bet I won't touch.

czakk wrote:
I think it is this date:

Based upon the parties' joint request as expressed in their letter to the Court, the trial date of 4/22/13 is vacated and reset to 6/3/13 at 9:45 a.m. The parties are advised that the trial date will not be continued again, and that they are expected to make appropriate arrangements to try the case starting on that date irrespective of what contingencies may occur between now and then.

So quick on the draw czakk. You da man.

weeble/czakk/any-other-legal-types - what do you think the odds are that GW will be successful with the motion to get rid of Dr Grindley?

141 pages. D: Is there a summary of this?

To put it very briefly, Dr Grindley argues that by the mid 1980s, 1990 at the latest, it had become effectively impossible for an artist to conceive of a "future soldier" wearing large shoulder pads, etc, by independent original creation.

This is due to the massive amount of imagery and literature such as Starship Troopers, Aliens, Judge Dredd, plate armour knights, samurai, and so on, which an artist could not have avoided entering his mind.

Obviously this would invalidate GW's claims of copyright in their models, so the GW lawyer argues against it. There is much amusing repartee as Dr Grindley uses his academic training to verbally fence with the lawyer.

Is there a transcript of that around? Or a recording? Would love to hear GW's lawyer being told "your copyright is invalid mate" by someone who can defend their posiition.

Nobody_Holme wrote:
Is there a transcript of that around? Or a recording? Would love to hear GW's lawyer being told "your copyright is invalid mate" by someone who can defend their posiition.

You can find these midway through page 117. Or better yet, just click this PDF.

Be forewarned, it is very dense and you won't find the quote you're looking for there, not quite like that. My advice is to just skim the next few pages after those transcripts, as the legal dakkaroos have already mined out the amusing nuggets and dissected them for you.

Thank you kindly, sir.

 Dysartes wrote:
weeble/czakk/any-other-legal-types - what do you think the odds are that GW will be successful with the motion to get rid of Dr Grindley?

Low. GW already lost one motion to exclude Grinley's testimony, and as I pointed out, it seems that the Judge is already of the opinion that the substance of Grinley's testimony is effectively admissible lay opinion. Further, GW's arguments, if accepted by the court, could begin to make it effectively impossible for anyone to be an expert in a copyright case.

GW is saying that because Grindley did not explicitly do a study to determine how objectively common every single element of every single work is in the context of the entire sci if genre and beyond, his analysis of the commonality of such elements is fundamentally flawed, useless, and not proper expert opinion. Bear in mind that GW was trying to get Grindley to go all he way down into the number of bootlaces when comparing one work to another.

To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

But if no one can claim a copyright on the shoulder pads, then CH can create them without issue.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

Intended use means nothing to copyright. The item is either objectively a copy or it isn't. In this case, the items are SIMILAR, and GW is arguing that the similarities are close enough to constitute infringement of their work.

The counter argument is that GW's shoulderpad is not original enough to afford it any sort of copyright protection, and that argument is a strong one.

So the crux of the defense is that one cannot infringe upon a copyright that does not exist.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

So is every Chevrolet targeted or what ever brand car accessory, or gun sights so on so forth. You dont see auto companies trying to sue accessory makers.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

If I said "Well, it's not obvious to me.", how would you then prove that they were intended for GW Space Marines?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

Fine. How does that make them illegal now? Is it illegal to produce tires for a Ford? Only if GW had the copyright on Roman numbers, arrows, fur and big rounded shoulder pads, there might be a chance. That's what GW is desperately trying to claim. That's why they don't want anyone telling the jury, that GW can't own the copyright on Roman numbers, fur and big rounded shoulder pads.

That particular conversational thread is long-since exhausted. If you want to reread the back-and-forth, feel free to do so; we're not going to revisit it again.