Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Friday, July 16, 2010
Lucasfilm v. Wicked Lasers
Lucasfilm Light Saber - cease & desist order to WickedLasers
Opinion piece by: David Todeschini - CEO AwesomeLasers
see:http://www.AwesomeLasers.com/lucasfilm.htm for complete article with photos
It has come to my attention that Lucasfilm - of Star Wars fame - has issued a cease & desist order to WickedLasers (based in Shanghai, China) because they say that one of Wicked Laser's LASERs (see: www.AwesomeLasers.com/1000mwblue.htm and photo below, left) - the Arctic III 1-Watt Blue LASER) looks too much like the "Light Saber" in the classic "Star Wars" films.... and get this... in the letter Lucasfilm has demanded that WickedLasers change the design, or stop selling it altogether! (see CNN article).
Lucasfilm said: "It is apparent from the design of the Pro Arctic Laser that it was intended to resemble the hilts of our lightsaber swords, which are protected by copyright ..." said the letter, dated last month and provided to CNN by WickedLasers.
Now I've seen the Jedi Light Saber in the movies, and the official Star Wars TOY "Light Sabers" (right), and I don't think that the Pro Artic Laser III (left) is a copy of the Lucasfilm design at all. Here they are side-by-side. What do you think a jury would say?
At the left are all the available Lucasfilm-Licensed TOY Light Sabers.
(photos from http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/collectibles/b72c/)
The TOYS will cost you almost as much as a REAL Laser
I ask you, honestly... where is the resemblance? - I mean, other than the fact that they ALL look like handles of some sort (also see example below). Does it look to you like the case design of the Arctic III was "...intended to resemble the hilts..." of Star Wars Light Sabers?
The cease-and-desist letter doesn't accuse Wicked of using the term "Light Saber" in its marketing, but it notes coverage from technology blogs that have frequently made that comparison. A headline from tech blog Gizmodo called the device "a real life Light Saber." The Daily Tech blog called it "perhaps the first consumer laser weapon" and said it "comes in sleek packaging that looks, unsurprisingly like a Light Saber."
Apparently, Lucasfilm's lawyers saw these blogs, and didn't bother to make the side-by-side comparisons I've done here. Had they done even a modicum of research, they would have known what you who are reading this now know.... The Arctic III is no Jedi Light Saber; it is NOT fiction, it isn't a toy, and it doesn't resemble - even remotely - anything that Lucasfilm is marketing or licensing as "Star Wars" toys or memorabilia. In any case, WickedLasers cannot legally be held responsible for the comments of bloggers, nor can the identity of bloggers who post anonymously be revealed. Case in point: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 341–42, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1516, 131 L.Ed.2d 426, 436 (1995) et.al.
The fact remains that the design of the Arctic III is unique and innovative and certainly futuristic, but that doesn't mean that it is "owned" by Lucasfilm. I suspect that the design of the Arctic III has more to do with function - i.e. the "ribbing" that circles the handle ensures a firm grip as well as increases the surface area of the device's case to facilitate heat dissipation.
In addition, I really don't see how Lucasfilm is harmed in any way by even a remote resemblance of the Laser to the film's Light Saber. The "Light Saber" (for those of you who aren't Sci-Fi fans) is a sword made of light - photons to be precise - a Jedi weapon that can cut through practically anything, and can only be stopped by another "Light Saber". A completely fictitious and utterly impossible piece of weaponry for a variety of scientific and technical reasons; the point being that the Light Saber as depicted in the Star Wars films doesn't actually exist, and isn't likely to exist anytime soon. The only thing that exists that can be marketed as a "Light Saber" are toys, and cannot be mistaken for an Arctic III Laser even by someone with the IQ of a turnip.
History has shown us that certain terms, words, and phrases become part of the common vernacular for the description of a product. For example the term "Band-Aid" (TM) which is a Johnson & Johnson trademark, is now part of the common vocabulary used to describe.... well - Band-Aids. The words "Band-Aid" have come to mean any sort of First Aid bandage - even though the term was coined and trademarked by the original manufacturer (Johnson & Johnson). When someone asks for a Band-Aid, would they refuse the bandage it if it wasn't manufactured by Johnson & Johnson?
However, the "Light Saber" is not an actual product; it is a figment of the active imagination of Lucasfilm, and the author of the "Star Wars" movies and novels.
Of course, a hand-held LASER of any significant power when fired up - particularly if the beam is visible - resembles the fictitious "Light Saber" - Scientific reality, or the similarity thereto, often follows Science Fiction. The differences being that the LASER "Sabers" won't bounce off each other like steel Samurai swords, the beams won't cut a person in half (not yet, anyway), and the beam of a LASER goes on indefinitely from the aperture; it doesn't end a meter or so from the hilt as does the fictional "Light Saber". Similarities and differences notwithstanding, perhaps my analogy to "Band-Aid" falls into the "Apples and Oranges" category - but you get the idea.
On this note, and perhaps a "more better" example (as they say in Brooklyn, NY) one could say that modern "Flip-Style" cellular phones are copies of the Original Star Trek "communicator" devices. I' sure that replica or "toy" Star Trek communicators are still being sold (after 40 years) to loyal Trekkers, but we don't see Gene Roddenberry suing Motorola or Verizon, or AT&T, or Sprint, Boost, Nextel et. al. do we? Why? Gene (if he were still alive) would know he didn't have a "cause of action". Neither does Lucasfilm.... only they're too ignorant, stupid (stupidity is the pursuit of ignorance), or too stubborn and hard-headed to know better.
According to the law, a company that sues another for "damages" must show "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "to a moral certainty" that it has been damaged in some way by the other, by the action alleged. The burden of proof falls on Lucasfilm to prove that WickedLasers used their notoriety to sell Lasers, and by the use of that notoriety or infringement of that trademark, it caused Lucasfilm some tangible harm. If the case went to trial, Lucasfilm wouldn't survive WickedLasers' summary judgment motion to dismiss. When that happens, WickedLasers should recover their court costs and lawyer's fees.
Hell.... anyone who has a copy of The Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual could fight Lucasfilm's "cease & desist" order and win.
If the case went to trial and I was counsel for WickedLasers, I'd propose that Lucasfilm answer the following questions:
How has Lucasfilm sustained financial loss by a blogger's comparison of the Arctic III to a (fictitious) Jedi "LighSaber"?
How has Lucasfilm's reputation suffered from a blogger's comparison of the Arctic III to a (fictitious) Jedi "LighSaber"?
Has sale of Star wars DVDs suffered as a result of a blogger's comparison of the Arctic III to a (fictitious) Jedi "LighSaber"?
Has Lucasfilm's sale of Star-Wars toys been impacted by people who purchased the Artic III Laser for their kids in lieu of the plastic flashlight toys?
Has WickedLasers infringed upon a product trademark?
Is WickedLasers ultimately responsible for the comments of bloggers?
Of course, the answers to the questions are "No", "No", "No", "No", "No", and "No".
The answers are "No" because the "product" is fictitious, and it isn't likely that ARTIC IIIs will be purchased instead of plastic flashlight toys. The answer to the last question is "No" as a matter of LAW: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 341–42, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1516, 131 L.Ed.2d 426, 436 (1995)
And since there is no mention of anything "Star Wars" on the WickedLasers Web site, or even the allegation that WickedLasers itself made the comparison, it is stare decisis (Legalese for "already decided") as a matter of precedent in U.S. Supreme court (case cited above).
In addition, according to the Law of Torts, (also see: e-Commerce Law) Lucasfilm lacks a "cause of action" to bring a case to bar, and it is my opinion that this is either a cheap publicity stunt on the part of Lucasfilm at the expense of a small company to get their movies and toy products back into the mainstream, or it is a case of arrogant stupidity or (more likely) a case of gross incompetence on the part of their legal department for which Lucasfilm will ultimately suffer the wrath of the LASER hobbyist community; the majority of which are Sci-Fi fans, and their friends who are Sci-Fi fans. In the end, WickedLasers will get more media exposure than they could possibly pay for. I wish Lucasfilm would sue US!! I'd represent my company Pro se and make a bucket of loot selling lasers before the judge throws the case out.
Obviously, Luicasfilm is ignorant of where the butter on their bread comes from.
If one wants to "pick fly-shit out of pepper" (to use a common phrase used in the Southern USA), it could be said that George Lucas stole the idea of a Light Saber from the Phasers of Gene Rodenberry's "Star Trek" series. As I recall, there was another Sci-Fi film that (Sci-Fi fans will recognize) used a variant of the Star Wars Light Saber - only in the form of a bow (i.e. bow & arrow) - only without the arrows. The fictitious weapon discharged a beam of light between two tips of the bow with the same effect as a Light Saber - and the weapon was handled much as a Klingon would handle a Batleth. We don't see Lucasfilm suing them!
In my opinion, the bloggers who put WickedLasers Arctic III and "Light Saber" in the same breath (or sentence) did Lucasfilm a FAVOR, as it calls to mind movie films that are 20 some-odd years old, and puts them in the context of a modern piece of technology. In other words, the bloggers that put WickedLasers and Lucasfilm in the same blog have paid Lucasfilm a compliment by comparing a 2010 piece of REAL technology with what would now seem to every avid Sci-Fi fan to be "technological prophesy" on Lucasfilm's part. The blog(s) compares a real piece of state-of-the-art technology to an imaginary weapon that can never exist by the known laws of science. Besides, the activation of a hand-held LASER of any significant power is immediately - mentally compared to the Luke Skywalker / Darth Vader Light Saber battle in the minds of those who have seen the "Star Wars" films - not a word is required by the bloggers or WickedLasers to accomplish this.
Lucasfilm hasn't got a snowball's chance in the pit of hell to prove the Arctic III's design is a spin-off or copy - intentional or otherwise - of the Jedi Knight's famous fictional "Light Saber" weapon. The photos above speak for themselves. If they take the case before a jury, LUCASFILM WILL LOSE, and in the process of this frivolous pursuit, they will ultimately lose the respect of every Sci-Fi fan for this act of litigious stupidity. They should be embarrassed, and they should humbly apologize to WickedLasers, and FIRE everyone in their legal department for gross incompetence.
In conclusion, my advice to Lucasfilm:
Hey George Lucas!!! Lighten up and get a life!
Pour your ingenuity, creative energy, imagination, and money into some more great films, and FIRE YOUR LAWYERS. Obviously, the leapt before they looked, and now will do and say anything to avoid the embarrassment. After they read this, they'll be in C.Y.A. mode. They are giving you BAD ADVICE, and sucking you dry (as all lawyers do).
In a court of law, you haven't got a prayer!!
And besides, you will alienate yourself and your film company from many of your biggest fans!
Above are a dozen photos of handles from walking canes available from different manufacturers. I would venture to say that each of the designs are unique, and propose that there is much more "similarity of design" among these walking cane handles than there is between a Jedi "Light Saber" and the Arctic III Laser. Do we see these walking cane manufacturers sending each other "cease and desist" letters? Why not?
Two of the Jedi Light Sabers can be joined together to form what resembles a Karate or Marital Arts Kendo stick. No such thing can be done with an Arctic III Laser.
The Jedi Light Sabers are TOYS. They are made to play with. Kids can play with them.
The Arctic III is a serious piece of precision equipment that is not intended to be used as a as a toy.
Opinion piece by: David Todeschini - CEO AwesomeLasers
see:http://www.AwesomeLasers.com/lucasfilm.htm for complete article with photos
It has come to my attention that Lucasfilm - of Star Wars fame - has issued a cease & desist order to WickedLasers (based in Shanghai, China) because they say that one of Wicked Laser's LASERs (see: www.AwesomeLasers.com/1000mwblue.htm and photo below, left) - the Arctic III 1-Watt Blue LASER) looks too much like the "Light Saber" in the classic "Star Wars" films.... and get this... in the letter Lucasfilm has demanded that WickedLasers change the design, or stop selling it altogether! (see CNN article).
Lucasfilm said: "It is apparent from the design of the Pro Arctic Laser that it was intended to resemble the hilts of our lightsaber swords, which are protected by copyright ..." said the letter, dated last month and provided to CNN by WickedLasers.
Now I've seen the Jedi Light Saber in the movies, and the official Star Wars TOY "Light Sabers" (right), and I don't think that the Pro Artic Laser III (left) is a copy of the Lucasfilm design at all. Here they are side-by-side. What do you think a jury would say?
At the left are all the available Lucasfilm-Licensed TOY Light Sabers.
(photos from http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/collectibles/b72c/)
The TOYS will cost you almost as much as a REAL Laser
I ask you, honestly... where is the resemblance? - I mean, other than the fact that they ALL look like handles of some sort (also see example below). Does it look to you like the case design of the Arctic III was "...intended to resemble the hilts..." of Star Wars Light Sabers?
The cease-and-desist letter doesn't accuse Wicked of using the term "Light Saber" in its marketing, but it notes coverage from technology blogs that have frequently made that comparison. A headline from tech blog Gizmodo called the device "a real life Light Saber." The Daily Tech blog called it "perhaps the first consumer laser weapon" and said it "comes in sleek packaging that looks, unsurprisingly like a Light Saber."
Apparently, Lucasfilm's lawyers saw these blogs, and didn't bother to make the side-by-side comparisons I've done here. Had they done even a modicum of research, they would have known what you who are reading this now know.... The Arctic III is no Jedi Light Saber; it is NOT fiction, it isn't a toy, and it doesn't resemble - even remotely - anything that Lucasfilm is marketing or licensing as "Star Wars" toys or memorabilia. In any case, WickedLasers cannot legally be held responsible for the comments of bloggers, nor can the identity of bloggers who post anonymously be revealed. Case in point: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 341–42, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1516, 131 L.Ed.2d 426, 436 (1995) et.al.
The fact remains that the design of the Arctic III is unique and innovative and certainly futuristic, but that doesn't mean that it is "owned" by Lucasfilm. I suspect that the design of the Arctic III has more to do with function - i.e. the "ribbing" that circles the handle ensures a firm grip as well as increases the surface area of the device's case to facilitate heat dissipation.
In addition, I really don't see how Lucasfilm is harmed in any way by even a remote resemblance of the Laser to the film's Light Saber. The "Light Saber" (for those of you who aren't Sci-Fi fans) is a sword made of light - photons to be precise - a Jedi weapon that can cut through practically anything, and can only be stopped by another "Light Saber". A completely fictitious and utterly impossible piece of weaponry for a variety of scientific and technical reasons; the point being that the Light Saber as depicted in the Star Wars films doesn't actually exist, and isn't likely to exist anytime soon. The only thing that exists that can be marketed as a "Light Saber" are toys, and cannot be mistaken for an Arctic III Laser even by someone with the IQ of a turnip.
History has shown us that certain terms, words, and phrases become part of the common vernacular for the description of a product. For example the term "Band-Aid" (TM) which is a Johnson & Johnson trademark, is now part of the common vocabulary used to describe.... well - Band-Aids. The words "Band-Aid" have come to mean any sort of First Aid bandage - even though the term was coined and trademarked by the original manufacturer (Johnson & Johnson). When someone asks for a Band-Aid, would they refuse the bandage it if it wasn't manufactured by Johnson & Johnson?
However, the "Light Saber" is not an actual product; it is a figment of the active imagination of Lucasfilm, and the author of the "Star Wars" movies and novels.
Of course, a hand-held LASER of any significant power when fired up - particularly if the beam is visible - resembles the fictitious "Light Saber" - Scientific reality, or the similarity thereto, often follows Science Fiction. The differences being that the LASER "Sabers" won't bounce off each other like steel Samurai swords, the beams won't cut a person in half (not yet, anyway), and the beam of a LASER goes on indefinitely from the aperture; it doesn't end a meter or so from the hilt as does the fictional "Light Saber". Similarities and differences notwithstanding, perhaps my analogy to "Band-Aid" falls into the "Apples and Oranges" category - but you get the idea.
On this note, and perhaps a "more better" example (as they say in Brooklyn, NY) one could say that modern "Flip-Style" cellular phones are copies of the Original Star Trek "communicator" devices. I' sure that replica or "toy" Star Trek communicators are still being sold (after 40 years) to loyal Trekkers, but we don't see Gene Roddenberry suing Motorola or Verizon, or AT&T, or Sprint, Boost, Nextel et. al. do we? Why? Gene (if he were still alive) would know he didn't have a "cause of action". Neither does Lucasfilm.... only they're too ignorant, stupid (stupidity is the pursuit of ignorance), or too stubborn and hard-headed to know better.
According to the law, a company that sues another for "damages" must show "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "to a moral certainty" that it has been damaged in some way by the other, by the action alleged. The burden of proof falls on Lucasfilm to prove that WickedLasers used their notoriety to sell Lasers, and by the use of that notoriety or infringement of that trademark, it caused Lucasfilm some tangible harm. If the case went to trial, Lucasfilm wouldn't survive WickedLasers' summary judgment motion to dismiss. When that happens, WickedLasers should recover their court costs and lawyer's fees.
Hell.... anyone who has a copy of The Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual could fight Lucasfilm's "cease & desist" order and win.
If the case went to trial and I was counsel for WickedLasers, I'd propose that Lucasfilm answer the following questions:
How has Lucasfilm sustained financial loss by a blogger's comparison of the Arctic III to a (fictitious) Jedi "LighSaber"?
How has Lucasfilm's reputation suffered from a blogger's comparison of the Arctic III to a (fictitious) Jedi "LighSaber"?
Has sale of Star wars DVDs suffered as a result of a blogger's comparison of the Arctic III to a (fictitious) Jedi "LighSaber"?
Has Lucasfilm's sale of Star-Wars toys been impacted by people who purchased the Artic III Laser for their kids in lieu of the plastic flashlight toys?
Has WickedLasers infringed upon a product trademark?
Is WickedLasers ultimately responsible for the comments of bloggers?
Of course, the answers to the questions are "No", "No", "No", "No", "No", and "No".
The answers are "No" because the "product" is fictitious, and it isn't likely that ARTIC IIIs will be purchased instead of plastic flashlight toys. The answer to the last question is "No" as a matter of LAW: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 341–42, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1516, 131 L.Ed.2d 426, 436 (1995)
And since there is no mention of anything "Star Wars" on the WickedLasers Web site, or even the allegation that WickedLasers itself made the comparison, it is stare decisis (Legalese for "already decided") as a matter of precedent in U.S. Supreme court (case cited above).
In addition, according to the Law of Torts, (also see: e-Commerce Law) Lucasfilm lacks a "cause of action" to bring a case to bar, and it is my opinion that this is either a cheap publicity stunt on the part of Lucasfilm at the expense of a small company to get their movies and toy products back into the mainstream, or it is a case of arrogant stupidity or (more likely) a case of gross incompetence on the part of their legal department for which Lucasfilm will ultimately suffer the wrath of the LASER hobbyist community; the majority of which are Sci-Fi fans, and their friends who are Sci-Fi fans. In the end, WickedLasers will get more media exposure than they could possibly pay for. I wish Lucasfilm would sue US!! I'd represent my company Pro se and make a bucket of loot selling lasers before the judge throws the case out.
Obviously, Luicasfilm is ignorant of where the butter on their bread comes from.
If one wants to "pick fly-shit out of pepper" (to use a common phrase used in the Southern USA), it could be said that George Lucas stole the idea of a Light Saber from the Phasers of Gene Rodenberry's "Star Trek" series. As I recall, there was another Sci-Fi film that (Sci-Fi fans will recognize) used a variant of the Star Wars Light Saber - only in the form of a bow (i.e. bow & arrow) - only without the arrows. The fictitious weapon discharged a beam of light between two tips of the bow with the same effect as a Light Saber - and the weapon was handled much as a Klingon would handle a Batleth. We don't see Lucasfilm suing them!
In my opinion, the bloggers who put WickedLasers Arctic III and "Light Saber" in the same breath (or sentence) did Lucasfilm a FAVOR, as it calls to mind movie films that are 20 some-odd years old, and puts them in the context of a modern piece of technology. In other words, the bloggers that put WickedLasers and Lucasfilm in the same blog have paid Lucasfilm a compliment by comparing a 2010 piece of REAL technology with what would now seem to every avid Sci-Fi fan to be "technological prophesy" on Lucasfilm's part. The blog(s) compares a real piece of state-of-the-art technology to an imaginary weapon that can never exist by the known laws of science. Besides, the activation of a hand-held LASER of any significant power is immediately - mentally compared to the Luke Skywalker / Darth Vader Light Saber battle in the minds of those who have seen the "Star Wars" films - not a word is required by the bloggers or WickedLasers to accomplish this.
Lucasfilm hasn't got a snowball's chance in the pit of hell to prove the Arctic III's design is a spin-off or copy - intentional or otherwise - of the Jedi Knight's famous fictional "Light Saber" weapon. The photos above speak for themselves. If they take the case before a jury, LUCASFILM WILL LOSE, and in the process of this frivolous pursuit, they will ultimately lose the respect of every Sci-Fi fan for this act of litigious stupidity. They should be embarrassed, and they should humbly apologize to WickedLasers, and FIRE everyone in their legal department for gross incompetence.
In conclusion, my advice to Lucasfilm:
Hey George Lucas!!! Lighten up and get a life!
Pour your ingenuity, creative energy, imagination, and money into some more great films, and FIRE YOUR LAWYERS. Obviously, the leapt before they looked, and now will do and say anything to avoid the embarrassment. After they read this, they'll be in C.Y.A. mode. They are giving you BAD ADVICE, and sucking you dry (as all lawyers do).
In a court of law, you haven't got a prayer!!
And besides, you will alienate yourself and your film company from many of your biggest fans!
Above are a dozen photos of handles from walking canes available from different manufacturers. I would venture to say that each of the designs are unique, and propose that there is much more "similarity of design" among these walking cane handles than there is between a Jedi "Light Saber" and the Arctic III Laser. Do we see these walking cane manufacturers sending each other "cease and desist" letters? Why not?
Two of the Jedi Light Sabers can be joined together to form what resembles a Karate or Marital Arts Kendo stick. No such thing can be done with an Arctic III Laser.
The Jedi Light Sabers are TOYS. They are made to play with. Kids can play with them.
The Arctic III is a serious piece of precision equipment that is not intended to be used as a as a toy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)