|
|
Cleolinda Jones (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} cleolinda) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2008-04-16 09:48:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Lexicon trial, day 3
Today: copyright experts testify, from what I've heard, so things should be a bit quieter. Originally the trial was scheduled for three days; I don't know how much longer it's actually going to take.
A quick link: 'Harry Potter' Author J.K. Rowling's Copyright Case: Behind All The Legal Jargon, from... MTV?
ETA: Fromdiane_duane: NY judge urges settlement in lawsuit over Harry Potter guide--again. (FW thread)
Huh.
Fromlilgoala: Day Two Brings Fresh Drama at Rowling Trial (more testimony from yesterday). "Putnam additionally attempted to throw doubt on Harris’s reliability as a witness; under cross-examination, Harris testified that he’d signed on as an expert witness in the past few weeks and was being paid $5,000 for his participation." (FW thread)
Also fromlilgoala: Harry Potter 'Lexicon' writer cries as he tells of flak over J.K. Rowling war. (FW thread)
Via Leaky Lounge, the WSJ Law Blog updates: Notes from the Potter Trial: After a Partial Settlement, the Defense Digs In. Early on, the article establishes that the settlement is in regards to false advertising and deceptive trade practices claims ("The settlement means only that neither J.K Rowling’s name nor her quote endorsing the online version of Steven Vander Ark’s H.P Lexicon will appear on the cover of the book version of the Lexicon") and trademark infringement and unfair competition claims. "So what does that leave? Copyright infringement, the core of the case."
*headdesk*
As a followup on WSJ LB: Potter Case: IP Lawyer Calls It a Toss-Up.
I would just like to state here and now that if it does go to the Supreme Court, I do not intend to follow each appeal the way we've followed the trial.
ETA 3: Leaky has another in-depth report on yesterday's testimony.
ETA 4: New from praetorianguard: Day Two: Settle, You Crazies! "It’s interesting to me, first, that both sides are so clearly playing to the public. Judges don’t care if you cry on the stand; they’re trained out of that sort of thing. Juries care, but this is a bench trial, so there’s no jury. I suspect that Cendali’s being overly thorough and RDR’s kind of throwing things at the wall – perhaps unintentionally – to see what sticks. It’s just kind of a silly way to run a trial, and I’m surprised this much of it is getting into evidence."
ETA 5: From waking_twilight: Death to Harry Potter plagiarists! (FW thread)
(Interestingly, RDR Books links to a different Times Online article: "Words' Worth: J.K. Rowling may own Harry's world, but we own her words now.")
From Leaky Lounge: There's going to be an anti-JKR protest, what?
Contrary to testimony, SVA did copy and paste from HP book text files?
From particle_person on LJ: SVA's posts on the Newton board regarding copyright. Apparently these were used at the trial yesterday?
ETA 6: USAToday: 'Potter' lexicon trial comes to an end. "A three-day trial over an unauthorized Harry Potter encyclopedia ended Wednesday with a flash of anger from J.K. Rowling."
ETA 7: WSJ LB: Potter Trial: On Last Day, Defense Outshines Rowling.
Latest:
ETA 8: The Pie Chart of Doom didn't make it in! NOOOOOOOOO.
ETA 9: Via Leaky Lounge: WSJ LB may not have represented Johnson's testimony accurately. Also, WSJers seem to have gotten Cheryl Klein (who did not testify) confused with Suzanne Murphy.
Today: copyright experts testify, from what I've heard, so things should be a bit quieter. Originally the trial was scheduled for three days; I don't know how much longer it's actually going to take.
A quick link: 'Harry Potter' Author J.K. Rowling's Copyright Case: Behind All The Legal Jargon, from... MTV?
ETA: From
diane_duane: NY judge urges settlement in lawsuit over Harry Potter guide--again. (FW thread)Lawyers for Rowling and Warner Bros., which holds intellectual property rights to the Potter books and films, rested their case Wednesday morning, saying they believed they had proven that "The Harry Potter Lexicon" took too much copyrighted material from Rowling's work. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Dale Margaret Cendali, said she still planned to call Rowling to the stand for a second time later in the trial to rebut testimony offered by the defendant, RDR Books.
[...]
The lawyers for both sides have settled some sections of the suit, but appear to be resolved to continue the litigation.
Huh.
From
lilgoala: Day Two Brings Fresh Drama at Rowling Trial (more testimony from yesterday). "Putnam additionally attempted to throw doubt on Harris’s reliability as a witness; under cross-examination, Harris testified that he’d signed on as an expert witness in the past few weeks and was being paid $5,000 for his participation." (FW thread)Also from
lilgoala: Harry Potter 'Lexicon' writer cries as he tells of flak over J.K. Rowling war. (FW thread)Cendali played for Manhattan Federal Judge Robert Patterson a video snippet of Vander Ark addressing a room full of fans at a Harry Potter convention last summer.
"Jo has quit," Vander Ark says to laughs, using the nickname preferred by fans of Rowling, whose first name is Joanne. "She's done. We're taking over now."
Via Leaky Lounge, the WSJ Law Blog updates: Notes from the Potter Trial: After a Partial Settlement, the Defense Digs In. Early on, the article establishes that the settlement is in regards to false advertising and deceptive trade practices claims ("The settlement means only that neither J.K Rowling’s name nor her quote endorsing the online version of Steven Vander Ark’s H.P Lexicon will appear on the cover of the book version of the Lexicon") and trademark infringement and unfair competition claims. "So what does that leave? Copyright infringement, the core of the case."
Patterson, drawing a comparison to “Bleak House,” the Charles Dickens novel about a never-ending court case, said he suspects this case will be appealed, and that it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, potentially taking years to resolve.
*headdesk*
For the Law Blog, Sorensen’s testimony sharpened the contours of one of the central issues in the case: Can a purported reference guide that confines itself to culling, compiling, organizing, distilling and synthesizing information from a fictional work — but that is scant on analysis — qualify for fair-use protection?
As a followup on WSJ LB: Potter Case: IP Lawyer Calls It a Toss-Up.
I would just like to state here and now that if it does go to the Supreme Court, I do not intend to follow each appeal the way we've followed the trial.
ETA 3: Leaky has another in-depth report on yesterday's testimony.
ETA 4: New from praetorianguard: Day Two: Settle, You Crazies! "It’s interesting to me, first, that both sides are so clearly playing to the public. Judges don’t care if you cry on the stand; they’re trained out of that sort of thing. Juries care, but this is a bench trial, so there’s no jury. I suspect that Cendali’s being overly thorough and RDR’s kind of throwing things at the wall – perhaps unintentionally – to see what sticks. It’s just kind of a silly way to run a trial, and I’m surprised this much of it is getting into evidence."
ETA 5: From waking_twilight: Death to Harry Potter plagiarists! (FW thread)
(Interestingly, RDR Books links to a different Times Online article: "Words' Worth: J.K. Rowling may own Harry's world, but we own her words now.")
From Leaky Lounge: There's going to be an anti-JKR protest, what?
Contrary to testimony, SVA did copy and paste from HP book text files?
From particle_person on LJ: SVA's posts on the Newton board regarding copyright. Apparently these were used at the trial yesterday?
ETA 6: USAToday: 'Potter' lexicon trial comes to an end. "A three-day trial over an unauthorized Harry Potter encyclopedia ended Wednesday with a flash of anger from J.K. Rowling."
ETA 7: WSJ LB: Potter Trial: On Last Day, Defense Outshines Rowling.
Latest:
ETA 8: The Pie Chart of Doom didn't make it in! NOOOOOOOOO.
ETA 9: Via Leaky Lounge: WSJ LB may not have represented Johnson's testimony accurately. Also, WSJers seem to have gotten Cheryl Klein (who did not testify) confused with Suzanne Murphy.
Post a comment in response:
