Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

The way trials work is you will, in 99.9% of cases, never know it's a copyright trial until partly through voir dare (jury selection). So you'd already be in the potential juror pool. The assumption is the plaintiff (the person whose copyright was 'stolen') is the giant corporation.

good answers

Funny, thought provoking, honest, blah blah blah. I don't really care very much other than more than I'm bored.

The way trials work is you will, in 99.9% of cases, never know it's a copyright trial until partly through voir dare (jury selection). So you'd already be in the potential juror pool. The assumption is the plaintiff (the person whose copyright was 'stolen') is the giant corporation. >good answers Funny, thought provoking, honest, blah blah blah. I don't really care very much other than more than I'm bored.
[–] • 4 pts

So It is not copyright but patent infringement that I can tell you about. I was invested in a company that made a drug to help burn victims and the FDA passed it. On the day it passed Genentech filed a patent infringement suit against the small company over a mickey mouse patent they got in the 1980s (along with thousands of others) (the pioneer days of bio-tech) and refused to license it so the drug never came to market. The reason they won the lawsuit was only money. They needed to stop the competitive drug and this was the cheapest way out. It was also filed in California where they are based and the other company was based in Va and very small. genenetech lawyers just overwhelmed the small company lawyers as if they stole the patent when they did not, (it was a very minor part of the drug trial regardless) The company I was invested in chose to stay alive rather than go for broke. I would LOVe to serve on a jury and see thru the nonsense lawyers pull.

[–] • 1 pt

The vidya game industry suffers a similar fate in the court room very very very often. The idea of "pokemon" was straight ripoff of dragon quest (IIRC). Where's the crushing blow to pokemon? Money prevents that and the like in other situations. There's a lot of content written about this phenomena.

[–] • 3 pts

Wow til about dragon quest. The irony now that Nintendo have patented the idea of Pokeballs and took/threatened to take the creators of palworld to court for using monster capturing device

[–] • 2 pts

It's absolutely insane. Every glance at reality, at a timeline etc. proves palworld was first.

[–] • 1 pt

I'll try to judge it how the founding fathers would have.

[–] • 1 pt

Depends on what the copyright is on and how old the claim is. Why? Because artists always get the shit end of the stick. You know all those beautiful, iconic statues and paintings? There is no reason those artists should receive so little for literally creating marvels that withstood hundreds and thousands of years that define our spirit. But at the same time, the creator should not hold exclusivity for all time, as eventually that work of art might come to define a group if not an entire civilization. For art, I'll always hear the case, and the appropriate right-holder time period is (life of the creator + 40 years) and the company who employed the artist has to share revenue with the surviving family much more equitably (family gets 50%, no fuck you Mickey).

[–] • 0 pt

Agreed.For actual artists, they get jewed so hard. Go read up about MJ's and virtually every musician of the past's contract 'deals'.

[–] • 1 pt

Never sign a contract written by a jew. Don't even give a jew an autograph, because they'll say that it was you signing an agreement to sign their contract.

[–] • 1 pt

My son composes - and has published - classical music scores. He has also had some of those works performed by others - without them legally obtaining copies of the music. He now has a lawyer on call to help protect his copyright. It's basically all intellectual property, and someone earns a livelihood off of it.

So it wouldn't really matter to me initially who the defendant and/or plaintiff were, rather the merits of the case and claim would govern. Of course if contrary facts, avarice, greed and other shit came out during the trial, I might become jaded, vindictive, stop caring and check out.

[–] • 1 pt

This is an example of why I had the ()(), small guys like your son deserve a real hearing. Were I on a jury and MGM (or similar) was a party to the case they would virtually always be voted against by me.

[–] • 0 pt

Awaiting everyone's thoughts as well. I have no dog in this fight.