The Elf ½ (elfwreck) wrote in lexiconga, @ 2008-04-22 21:47:00 |
|
|||
Entry tags: | commentary |
Overview of Lexicon Trial Docs
Justia URL: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/n
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. This is not legal advice or analysis. This is fannish musings about a Harry Potter-related trial. If I've mangled the descriptions of some docs, I welcome correction; if you got into legal trouble following my descriptions, then you need to have your head examined.
I've looked over the filings, and have a rough breakdown of what they are. There are 79 documents numbering 1-86 (some numbers are skipped).
Quick rundown:
1: Initial complaint by WB/JKR: They be stealin' mah copyrites.
2: Boring legal statment that WB exists.
3: Judge's order to RDR/SVA/Etc. demanding they, umm, participate in the trial.
4: Memo of Law--WB/JKR legalese demanding immediate action to avoid losing much $$ if they win.
5-8: Various statements in support of #3.
9: Judge's order demanding RDR stop publication while trial is sorted out.
10-12, 16-21: Legalese saying who's a lawyer and address forms and when & how discovery will or won't happen.
22-41: Various WB/JKR docs in support of the initial complaint & stop-publication injunction.
42: Amended Complaint. Haven't read it yet; says about the same thing with possibly updated language in spots.
43-45: Legalese about who's gonna lawyer for whom.
46: Opposition to Injunction: RDR's reply and why they think the Lexicon is legit & legal.
47-52: Statements supporting RDR/SVA.
53: Boring legal statement; see #2.
55-59, 61-63: Supplemental statements supporting WB/JKR.
60: Memo of law on WB/JKR's side.
64-66: Evidence declaration and scheduling docs.
67: RDR/etc Answer to Amended Complaint (Haven't read this one yet either.)
68-75: More schedules & announcements of lawyerdom.
76: Pretrial memo, RDR
77: Pretrial memo, JKR/WB
78-81: More legalese announcements and requests for time and such.
82: Def. Motion in Limine--RDR wants to exclude 900 pages of analysis, including presumably the "pie chart of fail."
83: Pltf Opp to Motion--WB/JKR insists that the 900 pages are just summations of previous materials, and necessary to their case.
84: Judge arranges to look at exhibits. Or something like that.
85-86: More lawyerese about lawyers involved in the case.
The most important ones to read & debate are:
WB: 1, 4, 42, 60, 77, 83
RDR: 46, 67, 76, 82
The various "in support of" statements are nifty. The legalese statements are not, except maybe for actual lawyers.
I want to do a rundown of all the interesting docs (the ones that aren't change-of-address or scheduling details), saying who-said-what and what legal points they bring up, in somewhat less obscure language. What I *really* want to do is put together the LOL version of the whole damn thing, 'cos this trial is severely lacking in cat macros. But I doubt I have the energy to do it alone; it'd take reading substantial portions of the docs (instead of proofreading them), and I'm not sure I'm going to allocate the time for it.
OTOH, it was nifty translating legal docs that were filed last week, so maybe I will write up an actual description of the claims being made. 'Cos while I'm sure they're being hashed out in some forums, those forums aren't on IJ.