|
| |||
|
|
Lexicon trial, day 2 From what I've heard SVA will testify today. Keep in mind, also--I can't remember which blogger said it, but apparently Judge Patterson looks and sounds a lot like John Huston, which adds an extra layer of awesome to the whole thing. To start the morning off: TLC comment wank; the Hollywood Reporter weighs in; Y ALOHA THAR! More as it comes. Watch This Page for update alerts. Quick ETA: From rosina_alcona: The Guardian's The strange case of Harry Potter and the battle of US district court 24A. From an anonymouse: The Telegraph's less sympathetic article. Also, ETA 2: Holy hell, you guys. The morning update was the last time I was at a computer, so I am DROWNING now. Here's what I was able to pull together in about an hour: From From an anonymouse: "Via the comments on TLC, according to the Law Blog at wsj.com, they stuck Jo right in front of the witness stand during Steve's testimony." (FW thread) Cendali tried to elicit a sense of the copyright knowledge that Vander Ark, a longtime librarian, might have, and that perhaps he knew ahead of time that RDR planned to infringe Rowling’s copyright. Cendali showed an e-mail from Vander Ark to the host of another Potter fan site. Vander Ark, apparently disillusioned with the deal he struck with RDR in August, wrote: “I am more than willing to dissociate myself with RDR. They have lied to me, misled me, taken advantage of me and in the end ruined my good standing with fans and with Rowling.” Well, if nothing else, I'll be interested to see if people treat SVA's tears differently from JKR's. I will no longer be posting news updates; I have recused myself from this case from the moment the e-mail in question was mentioned, as it was mine. I have made no news posts since discovering it would potentially be used and took no notes from the moment it was. Kristin will be handling news posts from here on out.From (Also, via From Hammer’s cross-examination of JKR was fishing at best. He asked far too many questions that he didn’t know the answer to, and he didn’t have back-up in case she gave an answer he didn’t like. Fishing – asking questions when you don’t know the answer, but you hope that you’ll get the answer you want – is always dangerous, but particularly when you’re examining witnesses you haven’t prepared. Direct examinations, that is, lawyers asking questions of their own witnesses, is supposed to go well; you have the time and opportunity to essentially script the performance. Cross-examining, or asking questions of the other side’s witnesses that you haven’t had a chance to talk to ahead of time, has the opportunity to go really well or really badly. Via Leaky Lounge: legionseagle has a writeup as well. From ... And now I have 582 comments to get through. *sob* ETA 3: WSJ Law Blog: Judge in Potter Trial Calls on Parties to Settle. Again, you may want to imagine John Huston saying this: Judge Patterson removed his glasses and addressed the court. “I’m concerned that this case is more lawyer-driven than it is client-driven,” he lamented. “The fair use people are on one side, and a large company is on the other side. . . . The parties ought to see if there’s not a way to work this out, because there are strong issues in this case and it could come out one way or the other. The fair use doctrine is not clear.” From Latest: ETA 4: More color commentary from jkrtrialblog on SVA's testimony: Though I do not support Vander Ark, nor do I care for the lawyers defending RDR, the entire courtroom couldn’t help but laugh when Vander Ark said, “this is exciting,” regarding Alohamora’s origin. The lawyer, obviously beyond unenthused, said, “I’m thrilled myself.” Quick ETA 5: From Post a comment in response: |
||||||||||||||
|
Privacy Policy -
COPPA Legal Disclaimer - Site Map |