Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
dismissal_opposition [2016/04/14 23:39] – adds judicial notice section Carlos Pedraza | dismissal_opposition [2016/05/10 13:18] – updates w/May 9 denial of dismissal Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* One 26-page document opposing the [[motion to dismiss]] filed two weeks before by the firm defending Axanar, [[Winston & Strawn]]. | * One 26-page document opposing the [[motion to dismiss]] filed two weeks before by the firm defending Axanar, [[Winston & Strawn]]. | ||
* A supplemental nine-page document opposing the corresponding [[http:// | * A supplemental nine-page document opposing the corresponding [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{section> | ||
===== Plausible Copyright Infringement ===== | ===== Plausible Copyright Infringement ===== | ||
Line 98: | Line 100: | ||
The dismissal motion asserted the legal complaint made allegations merely "on information and belief," | The dismissal motion asserted the legal complaint made allegations merely "on information and belief," | ||
- | > [The case law] does not prevent a plaintiff from pleading facts alleged “upon information and belief,” particularly when those facts are within the possession and control of the defendant..((Plaintiffs' | + | > [The case law] does not prevent a plaintiff from pleading facts alleged “upon information and belief,” particularly when those facts are within the possession and control of the defendant.((Plaintiffs' |
Further, the brief states, many of those facts came from the defendants themselves: | Further, the brief states, many of those facts came from the defendants themselves: | ||
Line 130: | Line 132: | ||
===== Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice ===== | ===== Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice ===== | ||
- | The request for judicial notice by the defense was meant to convince the judge to admit certain facts (most are references to generic items, characters, shapes, names, etc., claimed as copyright-free elements the defendants are entitled to use without violating Star Trek copyrights). The plaintiffs assert these facts are sufficiently disputed by their arguments for copyright protection of Star Trek elements as a whole as to render the request irrelevant.((Plaintiffs' | + | The request for judicial notice by the defense was meant to convince the judge to admit certain facts (most are references to generic items, characters, shapes, names, etc., claimed as copyright-free elements the defendants are entitled to use without violating Star Trek copyrights). The plaintiffs assert these facts are sufficiently disputed by their arguments for copyright protection of Star Trek elements as a whole as to render the request irrelevant.((Plaintiffs' |
---- | ---- | ||
**Keywords** {{tag> | **Keywords** {{tag> |