# George Lucas...WTF?



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 7, 2010)

'Star Wars' creator says laser too much like lightsaber - CNN.com
Mr. Star Wars sent a cease and desist letter to a company producing a portable laser and threatened to sue if they didn't C&D.  Because apparently any laser at all with a sleek handle is a "light saber" even if it's clearly not even sword-like.

As someone who has never seen the Star Wars movies (no real attachment to this jerk, in other words), but who happens to LOVE laser technology (I hope to make that my career)...I'm royally pissed off right now.

...Discuss?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 7, 2010)

If you haven't seen the movies, you might miss something - the body of the "S3 Spyder Arctic" real-world laser does, in fact, look like a movie lightsaber. The lightsaber only looks like a sword when it is turned on for combat, but their image when turned off is also iconic enough for folks to sell replicas. 

I would guess there's two things going on here:

1) Maybe Lucasfilms (which is not necessarily really George Lucas himself) feels there's copyright infringement going on.

2) (And, I think, more likely) Those lasers are *powerful* - you can blind someone with it, or burn skin - dangerous enough that they are sold with safety goggles!  Someone is inevitably going to get hurt, and I expect Lucasfilms wants to distance itself as much as possible from that.  Some kid thinks it's a toy lightsaber, playes with it like a toy lightsaber, and next thing you know their friend Johnny has his retina burned out and Johnny's parents are looking for someone to blame.  Lucasfilms may want it on record that they tired their level best to keep these things from being associated with their fiction and toys.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jul 7, 2010)

Can somebody with more legal background help me out here?  How could this be a copyright issue as stated in the linked article?  I could possiby see a trademark fight over the look and feel of the lightsaber versus the handheld laser, but how do you copyright the look of something?  

As for the lawsuit itself, it really seems to be a silly thing.  Next he'll be suing iRobot because the Roomba looks too similar to some droid from one of the movies.


----------



## Gog (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm unable to process anything after "I've never seen Star Wars"


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 7, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> Can somebody with more legal background help me out here?  How could this be a copyright issue as stated in the linked article?  I could possiby see a trademark fight over the look and feel of the lightsaber versus the handheld laser, but how do you copyright the look of something?




Images of something are definitely copyrightable.  An image is a type of creative work (saved to a tangible medium) just like any other.  Pictures (even moving ones), paintings, drawings, and what not are all copyrightable.  In this case, the image is copyrighted in the movies and many other forms, including lightsaber replicas that Lucasfilm has produced.  It is then being reproduced in another media; a physical laser casing.



> As for the lawsuit itself, it really seems to be a silly thing.  Next he'll be suing iRobot because the Roomba looks too similar to some *droid *from one of the movies.




Careful, there.  "Droid" is actually trademarked by Lucasfilm.  Read the fine print in a Droid phone commercial and you'll see it noted every time.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Jul 7, 2010)

Well tbh it *does* look like a lightsaber. That was my first thought when I saw the photo a while back, and I still make that connection.

And I doubt it'd be a serious problem in the future, as lightsabers design is not very ergonomic as grips go. Which is one of many arguments why this likely was ripped off lightsabers.

That said, I think the company will be able to weasel out just fine. The client makes the connection, but when I compared the photo with photos of movie lightsabers... all in all it's just another very uncomfortable long thingie with parts placement that make as much sense as shoggoth limb-placement.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> 2) (And, I think, more likely) Those lasers are *powerful* - you can blind someone with it, or burn skin - dangerous enough that they are sold with safety goggles!  Someone is inevitably going to get hurt, and I expect Lucasfilms wants to distance itself as much as possible from that.  Some kid thinks it's a toy lightsaber, playes with it like a toy lightsaber, and next thing you know their friend Johnny has his retina burned out and Johnny's parents are looking for someone to blame.  Lucasfilms may want it on record that they tired their level best to keep these things from being associated with their fiction and toys.




It doesn't take a very powerful laser to blind someone, just because of the nature of a laser.
Laser safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The coherence, the low divergence angle of laser light and the focusing mechanism of the eye means that laser light can be concentrated into an extremely small spot on the retina. A transient increase of only 10 °C can destroy retinal photoreceptor cells."

In my optics class, we weren't using extremely powerful lasers, and even so safety was a major concern.  All the instruments were painted black to make sure no laser light would relfect off of their surfaces and risk blinding any of us, for instance.  Selling it with goggles and that extra lens is just helping to make it safer, and I think it's nice of the company to include those features.  Whether lasers like that should be sold commercially at all is a different issue, and something for the governement to decide on.  Apparently the government allows it, if ours didn't it'd be illegal to ship them to the U.S. still, for example.  Not seeing the problem. (Maybe I'm blinded by science /reference)

As for the child safety issue...that's balloney.  If a parent lets their kid get their hands on one of those, or if a shopkeep seels one to a kid, they're the ones at fault.  And to try to blame Lucas for it because "they thought it was cool, like a lightsaber" is even more ludicrous, it's not his product.  Not saying stupid lawsuits don't happen (and too often unfortunately, are successful), but...it shouldn't be that way.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 7, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I...it shouldn't be that way.




It doesn't mater how you think it should be,m what matters is that someone will get hurt and sue Lucas arts over this.  It doesn't matter if the case gets tossed by the courts the media will eat it up and Lucas will look bad.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jul 7, 2010)

Deset Gled said:


> Images of something are definitely copyrightable.  An image is a type of creative work (saved to a tangible medium) just like any other.  Pictures (even moving ones), paintings, drawings, and what not are all copyrightable.  In this case, the image is copyrighted in the movies and many other forms, including lightsaber replicas that Lucasfilm has produced.  It is then being reproduced in another media; a physical laser casing.



 I understand the idea that an image itself can be copyrighted, but in this situation, the manufacturer did not take an image of a lightsaber and place a handheld laser inside an exact replica of a copyrighted image.  *That* I could see being challenged in court.  In this case the casing is being said to resemble a lightsaber in that it is a somewhat cylindrical shaped device with a laser in it.  That seems like a really big stretch.

If I were a judge on this case, I would toss the whole thing out in a heartbeat on the grounds that the look of a handheld cylindrical device emitting a beam of light has been in the public domain for a long time as this thing called a flashlight.  





> Careful, there.  "Droid" is actually trademarked by Lucasfilm.  Read the fine print in a Droid phone commercial and you'll see it noted every time.



 Oh, I know about that, and again, if a lightsaber "look" was a trademark issue, I would have less issue with this particular case.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> I understand the idea that an image itself can be copyrighted, but in this situation, the manufacturer did not take an image of a lightsaber and place a handheld laser inside an exact replica of a copyrighted image.  *That* I could see being challenged in court.  In this case the casing is being said to resemble a lightsaber in that it is a somewhat cylindrical shaped device with a laser in it.  That seems like a really big stretch.




A thing doesn't have to be an exact replica of the entire original to be in violation.  Take music, for example - you don't have to steal an entire song.  You just have to take a sample of sufficient length to be in violation.  By analogy, for a physical design you just have to have enough of the original's look to infringe.

And, no, it isn't just because it is cylindrical.  The plain cylinder lasers they sell (there are several) aren't part of the suit.



> If I were a judge on this case, I would toss the whole thing out in a heartbeat on the grounds that the look of a handheld cylindrical device emitting a beam of light has been in the public domain for a long time as this thing called a flashlight.




With respect - while I know that copyright's problematic in many ways, I think that sort of precedent would do damage to a great many artists and companies who do business by presenting artistic works.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 8, 2010)

First of all, it can't really be a patent or anything like that... he never actually made a working light saber.  Copyright I suppose.  But...those movies came out decades ago!  Don't patents and copyrights *expire* after a while?!  if it's more of a "registered trademark" issue...then AFAIK, as long as the company itself does nothing to compare it to a lightsaber or call it one, there's no wrongdoing.  I'm not a lawyer, though, could be completely wrong.

Second of all...they can't possibly have any sort of real claim to this.  I've seen SO many actual light saber knock offs in other media.  Not some handheld laser that is in no way distinguishably sword length or even useful for swinging around and making slashing motions.  I mean actual beam sabers!  Gundam Wing anime and many other Gundams use them, for instance.  If Lucasfilms really can sue over this laser, what's prevented them from suing these other representations?

Third...the handles in that sample picture all look very different from each other, aside from being about the same length (enough for a hand or two to hold it) and cylindrical.  So no, the handle on the laser doesn't look like a blatant ripoff of a lightsaber to me.  It could have just as easily been a sleek flashlight.
[sblock]Some of the designs actually look like something else, too.  Not sure if I can say what they reminded me of without offending Eric's grandma.  But let's just say I'm a little hungry right now, and some *dill* pickles would *do* to abate that hunger.[/sblock]


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 8, 2010)

Umbran said:


> If you haven't seen the movies, you might miss something - the body of the "S3 Spyder Arctic" real-world laser does, in fact, look like a movie lightsaber. The lightsaber only looks like a sword when it is turned on for combat, but their image when turned off is also iconic enough for folks to sell replicas.
> 
> I would guess there's two things going on here:
> 
> ...




I don't remember where I heard it, but I remember being told that pilots have to be careful as some morons get the brilliant idea to aim lasers at the cockpits of planes as they're landing and taking off.  Apparently the handheld ones can still cause eye damage.  If there's truth to the story, it's really sad/frightening.  Who would be stupid/selfish enough to pull something like that?

But then, never underestimate some people's stupidity, I guess.

Banshee


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> But...those movies came out decades ago!  Don't patents and copyrights *expire* after a while?!




Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States

So, I think we are looking at... 95 years from creation.  They've go ta ways to go yet.



> Second of all...they can't possibly have any sort of real claim to this.  I've seen SO many actual light saber knock offs in other media.




This is largely why I think the issue isn't so much about the copyright itself, as to cover liability, using the copyright question as the vehicle.  They probably don't even have to succeed n their suit to reach that goal.  Simply making the attempt may be sufficient.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2010)

Design Patents are a form of intellectual property- alongside Trademark, Copyright and Registered Marks- that are protected by law in many countries.

Design patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Essentially, they're protecting the visual and other aesthetic elements of a physical object created by a designer.  That's how Gibson guitars won lawsuits against certain (mostly Japanese) guitar makers (see "lawsuit guitars").

Now, Design Patents only last 14 years...which may be why they're suing under Copyright.  The thing is, I'm not sure the image of the lightsaber is copyrightable.  Yeah, images and iconic portions thereof can be copyrighted- see Mickey Mouse- but I'm not 100% sure that the lightsaber is iconic _enough._


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 8, 2010)

Copyright doesn't require any "iconic" sense. If I draw a crappy picture of a horse (which is the only kind of drawing I could do of a horse), it instantly is protected by copyright law. No matter how crappy my horse, you cannot use the image without my permission, period. 

If you used it without my permission I could sue you and win the amount of money I lost on sales of my horse picture because you were using it.

If I filed for copyright protection prior to your using it then in addition to that money, I could also sue you for court costs and for harm to my reputation or my brand, etc.

The trick with the lightsaber suit is in the court determining whether the laser design is so close to existing lightsaber designs that it's clearly an infringement or whether it's sufficiently different to escape the idea of it being directly derivative. The unfortunate reality of intellectual property law, though, is that if one of you is LucasFilm, with a vast treasury and legions of lawyers, and the other of you is a small company that makes lasers and probably turns only a very small profit, LucasFilm can make the court process so lengthy and expensive that it is in no way worth your time or money fighting it. Even if you won you'd be long out of business and bankrupt.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 8, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> but I'm not 100% sure that the lightsaber is iconic _enough._




What's your take on the "They're doing it to protect themselves from liability down the road" theory? It makes sense to me, but what I know about the law I learned from CSI and secondhand discussion of the White Wolf vs. Underworld suit.


----------



## Pseudonym (Jul 9, 2010)

I think part of the problem in my comprehension of this is that while the company itself never referred to their product as a lightsaber, the C&D letter quotes numerous bloggers and tech websites who refer to it as a lightsaber. I understand the need to protect IP even under what seems like silly circumstances to a third party observer, but how can a company making a laser device protect itself from what reviewers call it?


----------



## Merkuri (Jul 9, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> I understand the need to protect IP even under what seems like silly circumstances to a third party observer, but how can a company making a laser device protect itself from what reviewers call it?




I think the fact that other people call it a lightsaber is just used as proof that it looks close enough to a lightsaber to be violating the copyright.

The fact that they're calling it a lightsaber isn't bad... it's just evidence to back up their side of the argument.

The company can protect itself from this by... um... not making it look like a lightsaber.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 9, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> What's your take on the "They're doing it to protect themselves from liability down the road" theory? It makes sense to me, but what I know about the law I learned from CSI and secondhand discussion of the White Wolf vs. Underworld suit.



Seems shaky to me - if Lucas loses the case _then_ the product does not look close enough to the movie props, and it could be used in defense.

If Lucas wins then they can get the appearance changed to look less like a lightsaber.

I think that it is more of a knee jerk thing, like Lucas trademarking Nazi (it always annoys me when folks blame that on TSR - TSR included the trademark because it belonged to Lucas in connection with Indiana Jones).

For copyright and trademark, yeah, Lucas will go to court, though he can be surprisingly agreeable if folks bother to ask first. (Just ask the makers of the Tauntaun sleeping bag....) Coolness counts for a bit with Lucas.

The Auld Grump, who _wouldn't_ want to sleep in a snuggle bag shaped like a dead tauntaun?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2010)

Fast Learner said:


> Copyright doesn't require any "iconic" sense. If I draw a crappy picture of a horse (which is the only kind of drawing I could do of a horse), it instantly is protected by copyright law. No matter how crappy my horse, you cannot use the image without my permission, period.
> 
> If you used it without my permission I could sue you and win the amount of money I lost on sales of my horse picture because you were using it.




Actually, yes, copyright does require that something be iconic, though it doesn't use the exact term- whatever is copyrighted has to have features that are recognizably unique.  You have to show some creativity.  You have to have brought something new to the table.

In the example of your "Crappy Horse", you're absolutely right as to _when _it becomes protected.  However, if you sue to prevent someone from violating Crappy Horse, you'll have to show that what the other party did is definitely derivative of your work.

If Lousy Horse looks exactly like Crappy Horse, you'll win.  If, OTOH, the other party can prove to the Court's satisfaction that Lousy Horse couldn't be picked out of a lineup of a few dozen other horse illustrations (including Crappy Horse), some of which may even pre-date Crappy Horse, you're going to lose.

Which is why, even though something may be _technically_ copyrighted, it may not be _protectable_.

I could record myself doing 7 minutes of strumming quarter-notes in 4/4 time on my open C string on my guitar tonight and get it properly copyrighted.

The moment I try to sue someone for infringing that copyright by tuning their C string at a concert?  Its laugh-track time in the courthouse.



Mouseferatu said:


> What's your take on the "They're doing it to protect themselves from liability down the road" theory? It makes sense to me, but what I know about the law I learned from CSI and secondhand discussion of the White Wolf vs. Underworld suit.




I think its a good exercise in generating corporate goodwill, but I don't think it would have any real legal effect.

The reason is that, unless Lucasfilms (or any of its subsidiaries) actually owns any part of the laser manufacturer or is making any money from their manufacture (including working or cosmetic parts), the odds of anyone tracing liability to them is extremely slim.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jul 9, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The reason is that, unless Lucasfilms (or any of its subsidiaries) actually owns any part of the laser manufacturer or is making any money from their manufacture (including working or cosmetic parts), the odds of anyone tracing liability to them is extremely slim.




So...I'm curious then.  What would happen if as a result of this, the laser company had to pay royalties to Lucasmfilms.  And then a bunch of people got injured from the device and sued? 

I don't know...seems to me if liability were the concern, they'd do absolutely nothing to lend credence to the idea that the laser and Lucasfilms are related to one another, like they are *right now*.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2010)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> So...I'm curious then.  What would happen if as a result of this, the laser company had to pay royalties to Lucasmfilms.  And then a bunch of people got injured from the device and sued?
> 
> I don't know...seems to me if liability were the concern, they'd do absolutely nothing to lend credence to the idea that the laser and Lucasfilms are related to one another, like they are *right now*.




First of all, since there would only be a judgement and not a contract, Lucasfilms would still be in the clear.

In addition, what they're asking for is a C&D- a Cease and Desist.  If Lucasfilms wins, the laser maker may have to pay some damages in the form of royalties for any units they've sold...AND they'll be forced to issue a recall AND stop making their product look like lightsabers.

With that judgement in hand, anyone seeking damages from Lucasfilms will be stopped at the laser manufacturer's door.  The lack of a contract, the recall & design change would prevent anyone going any further.

However, if Lucasfilms inexplicably did a flip-flop post judgement and just used it as a way to force the laser manufacturer to have a license to continue making lightsaber-esque lasers (instead of complying with a C&D), they WOULD open themselves up to liability.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2010)

Pseudonym said:


> I think part of the problem in my comprehension of this is that while the company itself never referred to their product as a lightsaber, the C&D letter quotes numerous bloggers and tech websites who refer to it as a lightsaber. I understand the need to protect IP even under what seems like silly circumstances to a third party observer, but how can a company making a laser device protect itself from what reviewers call it?




Its all about protecting your brand.

Originally, asprin, xerox, kleenex and other words were actually particular brands- a couple still are- and the world in general started using them as generic words for the underlying product.

And by virtue of non-enforcement, they became generic terms for those products.

As for this particular product, the answer is: _*don't make your product look like someone else's design.*_

Again, this is what happened with the "Gibson Lawsuit guitars."  The makers were not prevented from making guitars, they were just prevented from making their guitars look too much like certain iconic and highly valuable Gibson guitars.  The same kind of thing happened with Fender and other major guitar makers, with varying degrees of success.  The courts have basically said that there are certain features that you cannot help but have when making a guitar of a particular type- the form follows the function- but if the design is too close, you'll get dinged.

And its a VERY fine line.  You look at a Fender Stratocaster next to a G&L Tribute Legacy, Fernandes Retrorocket, an Agile Traveler (and many others besides) and you'll see that the differences can be very subtle.


----------



## Cor_Malek (Jul 9, 2010)

Merkuri said:


> I think the fact that other people call it a lightsaber is just used as proof that it looks close enough to a lightsaber to be violating the copyright.
> 
> The fact that they're calling it a lightsaber isn't bad... it's just evidence to back up their side of the argument.
> 
> The company can protect itself from this by... um... not making it look like a lightsaber.




Um... I didn't save the link at the time, but I found this company some time ago by an article that called this product lightsaber as well (was it Cracked?). But it wasn't called that in a sense that it _looks_ like one, but rather "_omghandheldcombatlaser_".


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jul 10, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Originally, asprin, xerox, kleenex and other words were actually particular brands- a couple still are- and the world in general started using them as generic words for the underlying product.
> 
> And by virtue of non-enforcement, they became generic terms for those products.



 Sorry to go off track like this, but this reminds me of what happened to the older brother of one of my friends.  He was interviewing for an engineering position at Kodak in the division that made photocopiers and scanners.  He found he was in a panel interview and did not have enough copies of his resume for everyone in the room so he politely asked if they had a xerox machine.  The looks he received from that question told him that he had not endeared himself to the panel and would probably not get the job.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 11, 2010)

I know someone who was fired for drinking Diet Coke on the rocks at a dinner.

It was a dinner of Pepsi executives.  One of the higher-ups was giving a speech when that guy's drink arrived, and he knew from across the length of the table that it wasn't a company drink, so mid-speech said "Drizzt*, you're fired!" and kept going.

*Not his real name.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 11, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its all about protecting your brand.
> 
> Originally, asprin, xerox, kleenex and other words were actually particular brands- a couple still are- and the world in general started using them as generic words for the underlying product.
> 
> And by virtue of non-enforcement, they became generic terms for those products.




Except you're now talking about trademark, not copyright. Trademarks must be enforced in order to remain valid. Copyrights do not require this effort.

It seems that you're similarly confusing copyright and trademark in your earlier response to me about things being iconic as well. There are very significant differences between these two forms in intellectual property protection.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2010)

This is my field of legal specialty, I'm not making mistakes.

Depending upon what kind of thing you're talking about, it may include elements that are copyrighted, trademarked, service marked, design patented, or regular patents.  They're not mutually exclusive.

For example, a Lucasfilm lightsaber could include a copyright for the term as being part of the Star Wars universe, a trademark in the word "lightsaber", a design patent on the physical lightsaber's visual aesthetics, and regular engineering patents if it actually included some kind of new tech (especially if it actually worked like it does in the movies). 

In the context of that particular response, I was _indeed _responding to Lucasfilm's desire to protect their trademark in the term "lightsaber."  However, you don't necessarily need to bring a seperate case to defend the trademark if you're already going after a copyright lawsuit- all those other elements can be brought in later.  You can even bring them in serial- assuming you keep your eyes on the various statutes of limitations- and tie up your opponent in court for years, draining their funds.

In a sense, the C&D letter & copyright lawsuit filing is just a warning shot.  They don't want anyone using that term for any reason.

If nothing else, the very existence of the letter & suit puts EVERYONE on notice that Lucasfilm is in a mood to protect its IP.

And the thing is, they may be suing in copyright instead of trademark for legal reasons.  For instance, they may not have registered "lightsaber" as a trademark, or it may have expired without renewal- it duration is in 10 or 20 year intervals (depending upon when the trademark was initially granted).

Contrast that with the duration of copyrights, already mentioned previously in this thread.



> It seems that you're similarly confusing copyright and trademark in your earlier response to me about things being iconic as well. There are very significant differences between these two forms in intellectual property protection.




Nope.

Again, this is my specialty.  Given that I work primarily with recorded music, I have to keep track of the standards the courts apply in copyright infringement cases.

Look at any of the notable cases out there, _Rolling Stones v. The Verve_; _Queen & David Bowie v. Vanilla Ice_; _Satriani v Coldplay_; _Ray Parker, Jr. v. Huey Lewis & the News_- in each case, the court compares the alleged original work to the alleged infringer.  The artist claiming to be the originator can _only_ win if what they're basing their claim upon is _clearly identifiable_ as the work the alleged infringer copied.

So, again, if your_ Crappy Horse _was largely indistinguishable from Winston Churchill's _Naff Horse_ and Da Vinci's _Cavallo Ubriaco_, you're not going to prevail against someone else's _Lousy Horse_...unless it is clear that _Lousy Horse_ is essentially an *exact copy* of_ Crappy Horse._*

* And also not part of some kind of protected harbor, like parody or fair use.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 12, 2010)

Good to know that it's your specialty, that's certainly helpful. Nevertheless, I don't think you made it clear that copyrights do not require defending the way trademarks do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2010)

They don't require defending to retain, no.

They _do _require defending if you wish to:


Get paid for the value of your work
Avoid people devaluing your work by using it to produce derivative products of inferior quality (see the Gone with the Wind lawsuit)
Consumer backlash on your work due to inferior quality of infringing products

And so forth.

There is also the possibility of Orphan Works (essentially abandonment of copyright) legislation passing.  Right now, you don't lose any of your rights by non-enforcement, even if you don't respond to requests from those seeking to pay you royalties.  However, there is real debate about having copyright lapsing if the copyright's holder cannot be reached for routine operations of the law.

The more copyright holders who don't "tend their fields", the more likely it is that such legislation will pass.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 13, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In a sense, the C&D letter & copyright lawsuit filing is just a warning shot.  They don't want anyone using that term for any reason.




Just to clarify something: so far, I have not heard of any suit being filed.  Lucas has send the C+D letter threatening suit, but has not followed through.  

My understanding is that C+D letters are a cheap and easy way to test the water and sometimes bully people into submission.  For example, even if the laser company in question knows they could win the case if taken to court, if they can't afford the legal costs to fight Lucasfilm in court they may acquiesce to the demands anyway.

Of course, its also possible that Wicked Lasers is banking on the fact that they are based in China, where filing charges against them will be much more difficult, to deter Lucas from actually pressing charges.  In some ways, we are witnessing an interesting game of poker.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2010)

C&D letters ARE cheap.  Like I said, a warning shot, and just as you surmised, they may be a way for an IP holder to win even if they couldn't prevail in court.  If you don't have the $$$ for the fight, don't start it.

As for the company being located in China?  China has gotten a LOT more diligent about enforcing copyright and other IP laws since the Chines pirates that have scourged other nation's IP holders have also started damaging the locals as well.

In addition, if the USA is the primary market for their product, they really can't afford too much negative press or a big fight with one of the local favorites.

_Especially_ if they get the authorities in other countries to enforce their IP rights overseas.  If you can't sell in your primary market, your secondary market, your tertiary market, etc., because of copyright laws, it may not be possible for you to stay in business.

Sure, you could TRY to stay in biz as a pirate, but lasers aren't quite as cheap to reproduce as, say, knockoff watches, toys or even other forms of IP (like movies or music).

Besides, do YOU want to be the one that finds out that Lucasfilm's Security has actual _WORKING _Lightsabers?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jul 13, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Besides, do YOU want to be the one that finds out that Lucasfilm's Security has actual _WORKING _Lightsabers?



I don't believe that could possibly be true.  When I last had a run-in with Lucasfilm Security, they assured me that they were only carrying ordinary nightsticks and that those were not the droids I was looking for.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jul 13, 2010)

Thanks for the insight, DannyAlcatraz.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 13, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If Lousy Horse looks exactly like Crappy Horse, you'll win.




Must.... resist.... comment... about... Dead Horse....


----------



## Janx (Jul 26, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Must.... resist.... comment... about... Dead Horse....




well, there's the thing.  If you take a printt of Crappy Horse and rotate it 180 degrees, you will see the exact likeness of the legendary painting Dead horse.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 26, 2010)

See, now you're just using technology to make stuff up!  Judas Priest wept!


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 26, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I know someone who was fired for drinking Diet Coke on the rocks at a dinner.
> 
> It was a dinner of Pepsi executives.  One of the higher-ups was giving a speech when that guy's drink arrived, and he knew from across the length of the table that it wasn't a company drink, so mid-speech said "Drizzt*, you're fired!" and kept going.
> 
> *Not his real name.




Wow.  Who knew Pepsi was ran by a bunch of troll baiters?  I mean seriously, you'd think that Pepsi would have made sure that the place only sold Pepsi just in case people started to order drinks, and the fact they didn't only proves they wanted to bait someone into getting fired.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 26, 2010)

In the latest opinion by Justice Allan Lane of the 9th circuit Court of Appeals: he ruled in the case of _Lousy Horse v. Crappy Horse_, that a Horse is a Horse...of Course.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 26, 2010)

Unless it's Mr. Ed.  Unfortunately no one has decided on what Mr. Ed's status is beyond being "famous."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 27, 2010)

And dead.

Which, BTW, lets him join the pantheon of other unbeatable horses, like Trigger and Silver.


----------



## FoxWander (Jul 27, 2010)

Janx said:


> well, there's the thing.  If you take a printt of Crappy Horse and rotate it 180 degrees, you will see the exact likeness of the legendary painting Dead horse.




Ah yes, the famous _Dead Horse_. Remarkable painting. Lovely colors. It's sad how often it's mistaken for the stunning work, _Blue Roan- resting_, by the Norwegian painter, Olaf Prot.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 27, 2010)

And his subequent work, _Blue-grey Mare- pining for the fjords_.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Aug 5, 2010)

Wicked Lasers Given Reprieve by LucasFilm on Lightsaber Clone
Wednesday, August 04, 2010 - by Michael Santo
Lucasfilm has backed off the cease-and-desist demand it had made to Wicked Lasers, creator the of Spyder III Pro Arctic. Admittedly, the device sure reminds us of a lightsaber, but according to the letter that was sent to the Wicked Lasers' CEO, as long as the company puts a disclaimer on any pages that are graced by the Pro Arctic, they will drop the demand.

The letter, from David J. Anderman, General Counsel for LucasFilm, stated that based on the publicity and statements that Wicked Lasers had made, it was clear that "The media and public has come to realize that Lucasfilm would never endorse or license a highly dangerous product such as your Arctic Pro Laser."

In addition to the statements the company made, Wicked Lasers added safety features to the product (pictured above). There is a safety lock, its default setting now sets the power level at 20 percent of maximum, and all lasers are shipped with safety goggles.

Wicked Lasers CEO Steve Liu said, however, that all the publicity proved to a positive, and sales in fact tripled. "This has been strange. We felt that it would have been a very bad thing in the beginning, but it ended up helping the business in a very big way."

source


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 5, 2010)

Good for Wicked Lasers!

Also, that sounds like a really dumb move by LucasFilm.  By adding a disclaimer to any page with info on the product, now they'll basically be pointing out any possible similarities between the two.  ""Disclaimer: This is totally not a light saber, and LucasFilms had nothing to do with it!  Honest!"

Or as someone simply put it in the replies to that source page: "Of course sales triple... no body had ever even heard of the company until LucasArts made a fuss about it!"

I'm happy, seems like Wicked Lasers got the best possible outcome and LucasFilm shot themselves in the foot.  Awesome two-fer in my book.


----------



## Someone (Aug 14, 2010)

"Disclaimer: Despite being totally cool and simliar enough to lighsabers so Lucas himself though they were stolen from Vader's personal armory, this device is not a lightsaber. Whooshing sounds not included"


----------

