Legal Geek No. 156: 2018 Wrap-up and Board Game Gifting Guide

Happy Holidays, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we close out 2018 with answers to where you can find the Legal Geek content, including on other podcasts this year, and then discuss another holiday gift guide in a field we cover frequently.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp156 

Throughout the year, I receive several questions on whether there's a separate podcast for Legal Geek or another source for prior segments, especially now that this segment has reached a fifth anniversary from its start in December 2013.  While there is no separate podcast as of yet, you can always find the more than 150 prior installments of this segment over at Archive.org, under the user BuckeyeFitzy.  I also keep a running list of my scripts at legalgeekfitz.blogspot.com, but fair warning, these are typically unedited versions of the audio you find on Archive.

I also make appearances at trade shows in the tabletop and video game industry, providing educational seminars to game designers and publishers regarding my chosen field of practice, intellectual property law.  I provided seminars at Origins Game Fair in Columbus, OH and at GenCon in Indianapolis in 2018 and plan to attend both again in 2019.  There are over 300 gaming conventions in the U.S. annually, so if you know one that needs such a speaker, let me know and I'm happy to explore new ones as we move forward.

Finally, a 2018 Legal Geek recap would be incomplete without mentioning a couple of find podcasts that brought me on to guest for full shows.  As usual, I appeared on The Geek All Stars with Dan the board game man this year, specifically in Episode 166 entitled SDJ, Charterstone, and The Law Star Rides Again.  I also appeared on Ritual Misery Podcast near the beginning of the year in episode 150.  If you want a little longer form Legal Geek, check those shows out.

Before wrapping 2018, I also wanted to provide a second gift giving guide I enjoyed for this holiday season, following up on the privacy law-themed one from 2 weeks ago.  This one is just a great overall guide to the best tabletop board games, an article entitled Ars Technica's Ultimate Board Game Buyer's Guide.  If you're looking for a last minute gift and can get yourself to a local game store or Amazon prime, these lists will provide good ideas for gamers of all experience levels.

2018 was a notable year on multiple fronts, including a contentious Supreme Court replacement and multiple landmark cases at that court, including one opening the door for sports betting in all 50 states and another striking a blow at partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts.  We also had plenty of fun legal stories to cover, including the romance novelist who trademarked Cocky, and the surprising legal problems raised by the electric scooter invasion into many major cities.  

The Bottom Line is, the legal and nerd worlds keep generating interesting content and lessons to learn, and I will continue to provide insights into these fields in 2019.  Thank you for listening to this segment and supporting it with your suggestions, and also to Scott and Tom for making this a part of Current Geek for the last 5 years.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 155: Web Scraping Case highlights lesser-known IP Enforcement Rights

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we cover a case in Illinois from November suggested by subreddit user Gavreh that shows how internet technologies can sometimes force the spotlight on lesser known laws and methods of trying to enforce intellectual property.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp155 

The case is titled Alan Ross Machinery v. Machinio Corp., and the allegedly infringing conduct of Machinio included using web scraping to extract sales listings from Alan Ross's website and then copied those sales listings on their own site.  The copied material into the Machinio website was mostly factual and did not include specific branding of Alan Ross, so traditional enforcement of a copyright or a trademark was not really available in this case.  However, Alan Ross generated a couple of lesser-known claims under the copyright and trademark laws to try and defend their rights against this practice of web scraping.

The first claim was for violation of the Copyright Act's prohibition against distributing false copyright management information, or removing or altering such CMI.  CMI is generally defined as identifying information placed on a notice of copyright or on a work, and is most often seen online as visible watermarks on images or copyright information in metadata.  This provision came into effect as a part of the DMCA in the late 90s.  If a defendant knowingly removes or alters such CMI when distributing the underlying work, so as to disguise the potential copyright infringement, the defendant can be liable for thousands of dollars of damages under this legal claim, which is separate and independent from a traditional copyright infringement claim.  Furthermore, the copyright doesn't even need to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office to sue on this CMI ground, which is the opposite of traditional copyright infringement lawsuits.

Alan Ross failed to prove violation of this law according to the court.  As to distribution of false CMI, which was alleged to be done by Machinio at a blanket copyright notice found in the terms of use of Machinio's website, the court ruled that this separate terms website is not conveyed with the works on other websites and thus cannot be false CMI connected to the works.  As to the claim that Machinio removed the CMI in the form of copyright notice found at the bottom of Alan Ross's webpages, the court ruled this notice covered Alan Ross's website itself and not the particular sales listings, so just copying the facts in the form of sales listings did not allow for a claim of removal of CMI from a copyrighted work.

The second claim was for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, which is the trademark law of the U.S..  False designation of origin exists when a manufacturer or seller lies about the country or origin or maker of its products.  This is kind of analogous to CMI removal claims, just in the branding or source identifier context.

Unfortunately for Alan Ross, there was a prior Supreme Court case called Dastar which ruled that these claims attach only to the producer of tangible goods offered for sale, not to authors of any idea or concept embodied in those goods.  In this case, the copied elements of sales listings were deemed to be ideas or communications embodied in the sales listings, as the actual website listings of Machinio were made by the source of those products.  In other words, Machinio produced website listings using someone else's content, and these website listings did not falsely designate Alan Ross as the source of the website listings, so no breaking of the laws just like the prior Dastar decision.  This is a nuanced application of that prior case, but it makes sense.

The Bottom Line is, Alan Ross Machinery tried to come up with some creative ways under the U.S. laws to enforce their rights and stop the practice of web scraping done by Machinio on the sales listings from the Alan Ross website, but these lesser-known enforcement methods did not work in this case.  However, the lesson to be learned is that there's usually some way to try and stop copying of content even if the traditional methods of IP enforcement do not work, and good legal counsel can open doors not often known to exist in these fields.  Especially in cutting edge fields like internet commerce with relatively newer practices like web scraping.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 154: Fingerprint Fakes and 2018 Privacy Holiday Gift Guide

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we cover a couple of interesting stories from the field of privacy law.  First, a story about the development of master fake fingerprints, and second, a guide to the holiday gift season, from a tech nerd and privacy/information security context.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp154 

Researchers at New York University and Michigan State University have been working on fingerprints for unlocking biometric sensors such as the TouchID sensor on newer iPhones.  These so-called master fingerprints are not based on the conventional method of copying a genuine user's actual fingerprint, but instead, these are based on analysis with artificial intelligence of common fingerprint patterns.  The AI uses a discriminator to identify common features and combine them into a realistic fingerprint.

To this end, the fake master fingerprints have been tested on a number of devices like iPhones, and these fingerprints developed by the AI unlocked about a quarter of the devices.  That's a far cry from the odds of a fingerprint match publicized by Apple, which is 1 in 50,000.  

Why is this so different in reality?  The sensors used on current phones and laptops typically are small, which means only a portion of a full fingerprint is ever recorded.  That creates fewer data points to make a successful match, and a much higher likelihood of fake matches of the fewer data points.  It's eye-opening research for those who rely on biometric identifiers as the security of the future, as once again, smart computers and college researchers prove how easy such security measures can still be to overcome.  Kudos to NYU and Sparty for some very interesting research.

Turning to our holiday-themed story, Mozilla has investigated 70 top holiday gift items for 2018 to see how they stack up on minimum security standards.  Products are rated on a scale of not very creepy to super creepy, with feedback on everything from readability of the privacy policy associated with the product to the use of cameras, microphones, and location tracking.  For those who don't think about the ever-increasing amount of smart devices and the data they collect, this is a fun educational experience into all of these aspects consumers should care about.

In an era where even grandparents are learning about data privacy from Facebook and similar social networks, it would not be surprising to see more consumers trend towards products that treat data security better.  So if you're curious how all the roombas, security cameras, and BB-8 toys around you are planning to take over the world in the future robot revolution, check out this project by searching Mozilla Privacy Not Included on any search browser.

The Bottom Line is, nothing says holiday season like consumer privacy and data security.  While manufacturers like Apple will try and sell products based on things like biometric identifier scanners, nonprofits like Mozilla and researchers will continue to do the heavy lifting to let consumers know which companies are developing more secure products.  Nobody wants a data breach to ruin this season, after all.  Here's to being smart consumers in holiday season 2018 and beyond.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 153: Which University Owns Block O?

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, to celebrate the end of the college football regular season and the national championship chase, we review an ongoing trademark opposition battle between two universities who have been and continue to be rivals on the football field when jockeying for playoff berths.  The question at hand: who is entitled to own a Block O in trademark or branding?

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp153 

My alma mater the Ohio State University is one of the most active trademark registrants and brand protectors in the field, as millions of dollars of revenue are enhanced or protected by the brands of the university.  You won't be surprised to learn this is one of the parties in the dispute we cover today, and this is not the first trademark battle in recent times for this OSU.  

For example, last year Ohio State tussled with Oklahoma State University over the rights to "OSU" related marks on apparel and other goods.  However, that 2017 battle ended quickly as the universities replaced a prior deal over geographic area exclusivity with one based on color schemes, which are different for the two universities.  With universities becoming more national and international brands, this type of change in peaceful co-existence agreements is becoming pretty typical.  So don't expect to buy any Cowboys gear for Oklahoma State in scarlet and gray, or any Buckeyes gear for Ohio State in orange and black.

Now turning back to this year, the University of Oklahoma filed a federal trademark application on a logo of a band drum major with a block O on the chest of the uniform.  Ohio State has opposed this trademark after allowance in an attempt to stop formal registration of the logo by Oklahoma.  As we've covered on previous segments, trademark opposition processes allow for third parties who believe they have superior or older rights in a mark to argue for an allowed trademark application to be withdrawn before it registers as a finalized trademark, and this is the final step in the trademark registration process in the U.S..

Many college sports programs use block-style fonts, but Ohio State argues that Oklahoma more typically identifies with "OU" block letters and marks than just a block O.  Furthermore, Ohio State argues that Oklahoma band drum majors rarely wear a block O on their chest, and the block O brands have been developed and used since 1898 by Ohio State to identify that university.  In other words, a case for consumer confusion is being made over the logo being registered, but this is also Ohio State trying to stop any potential competition in the Block O brand space.

Oklahoma has had drum majors wear such a uniform on at least one occasion, so that assertion by Ohio State may not be deemed persuasive by the Trademark Appeal Board.  While the OSU marching band may be a famous part of their university, they have long worn military style uniforms that do not include a big Block O, so the claims about owning Block O in this specific logo's context may also fall flat with the Appeal Board.  The key in trademarks is consumer confusion, and it feels like it will be an uphill battle for Ohio State to prove confusion with this Oklahoma registration.

The Bottom Line is, universities are branding experts as this is one of the primary ongoing revenue streams for them.  While most may pay more attention to the potential cash being made for college football playoff appearances Oklahoma and Ohio State compete for, these battles in branding may actually have more long term economic effect.  In this case, expect Boomer Sooner to roll on to the next round.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 152: Pokemon Go to Patent Infringement?

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we review an ongoing lawsuit between Niantic, the maker of Pokémon Go, and a patent owner who owns a geotagging patent, and what the potential damages could be for this popular phone game.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp152 

News broke a few weeks ago of Niantic exceeding $2 billion dollars in revenue from their hit software app Pokémon Go.  Later this week, the Nintendo Switch will have the first classic-style Pokémon game come out for the system called Pokémon Let's Go Eevee and Pokémon Let's Go Pikachu, and these games are also configured to integrate with the phone app phenomenon.  That could make Pokémon Go even more popular again.  But all this financial success draws the risk of lawsuits, which is exactly what is happening in this Delaware case we cover today.

Blackbird Tech LLC is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,802,127 on a "Video game including user determined location information."  The general gist of the claims in this Patent are to cover a computer game or method where GPS signals are used to read a first physical location of a user and then displaying images of the first physical location on a user's device along with virtual objects that are not physically present at the first physical location on the user's device.  In other words, the game displays a map or current image of the user's surroundings and adds virtual elements to it.  This set of claims was clearly tailored to target covering augmented reality games.

Blackbird's patent has an original filing date stemming back to 2011, and it issued in October last year.  So in December, Blackbird sued Niantic and claimed Pokémon Go infringes the claims of this patent.  Niantic decided to file a motion to dismiss claiming that the Patent was invalid under recent software patent rules stemming from a Supreme Court decision entitled Alice v CLS Bank.

The Alice decision makes software patents and business method patents invalid if they merely recite abstract ideas performed on generic computer equipment.  This decision has led to a slew of patents being rejected or invalidated, as the abstract idea rules tend to be broadly applied.  But here, the judge in a Delaware federal court ruled last week that Niantic oversimplified the claims of Blackbird's patent in arguing that they were covering just an abstract idea.  The court noted that the system and method in the claims actually takes images of actual locations before integrating those images into the virtual video game environment, which is allegedly more than just an abstract idea.  Seems like a close call to this patent attorney, but it was good enough to overcome a motion to dismiss.

The result is that the case will continue through the discovery process, unless the parties settle with one another.  Niantic's attempt to swat this case away quickly has failed, and a long expensive fight in court will thus be ahead.  Niantic may still prevail on a non-infringement or invalidity argument in the full trial, but it will take months of litigation work to determine those grounds.

If Niantic loses this case, remedies such as money damages or an injunction to shut down the game may occur.  It is far more likely that money damages would be awarded, but that could still seriously impact the future development of the popular phone app.  The stakes are huge, and that explains why both parties are willing to fight this out so far in court.

The Bottom Line is, in many fields like software, there are usually ongoing patent application families with relatively broad disclosures which can later become patents when they happen to cover later developments that become big money makers, like augmented reality games.  It can be really hard to avoid these risks when you're a big success like Niantic, and it seems to be just an added cost of doing business under the current U.S. IP regime.  We will keep our eyes on this case and provide updates when available, but in the meantime, enjoy catching those digital pocket monsters.

Also, RIP to Stan Lee, who was blessed to live long enough to see his stories become a major hit film franchise and inspiring to so many people in our community and beyond.  Excelsior!

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 151: What to Expect from the Roberts Court

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we come back to a subject promised 3 months ago when we covered the end of the prior Supreme Court term and retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy's legacy, that being what we can expect from the Roberts court now that Kennedy has been replaced by Brett Kavanaugh.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp151 

Even though John Roberts has been the Chief Justice since replacing former Chief William Rehnquist in 2005, his first decade plus on the court will likely be known in history as the Kennedy court because Anthony Kennedy was a libertarian thinker who often split the difference between the court's liberal justices and conservative justices.  Now, however, Roberts is the most moderate conservative in a clear 5-justice majority thanks to the addition of Justice Kavanaugh to the likes of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.

This means Roberts will likely be the new person to chart the course for how decisions in the Supreme Court will head in the next few terms.  Furthermore, his role as Chief Justice also gives him power to assign opinions when he is in the majority, lending him more power and influence as the court shifts to put him in the center.  Roberts has also opined frequently on the importance of the Supreme Court as an institution and its credibility.  Those concerns may lead him to push for more compromises across the liberal-conservative aisle.

Roberts has had a couple notable decisions where he broke from his conservative mates, most notably in upholding the Affordable Care Act in the biggest challenge to the law known as Obamacare.  But for the most part, his personal views and decisions have been largely conservative.  So outside a true shift in his judicial philosophies, the Roberts court will likely be a time of changing and challenging precedents of the past, up to and perhaps including abortion rights.  It certainly doesn't look great for those of progressive thoughts and political agendas.

The other major change will be the inclusion of Justice Kavanaugh, who was the biggest confirmation firestorm since Clarence Thomas and for similar reasons.  In his first week of oral arguments at the Court, Kavanaugh spoke up and asked questions less frequently than most of his colleagues, but when he did speak, he tended to speak more words on average than every other justice.  So unlike Justice Thomas, Kavanaugh appears like he will not shy away from participating substantively in oral arguments.  That means the bench will remain relatively hot for lawyers who appear to argue before the Court, which is a good thing.

Historically, justices on the Court tend to start fairly moderate in their first terms and then sway more towards their ideological sides as time goes on.  So Brett Kavanaugh could follow this formula and be less conservative in these first couple years than where he will end up.  That could allow for Chief Justice Roberts to find a happy medium and perhaps shift to more of a centrist in this time period without much precedent from the last 50 years being upset.  But that's only one potential outcome, and we must see where Kavanaugh comes out on his first term before we evaluate his likely ideological further moves.

The Bottom Line is, this is a huge potential shift for the Supreme Court changing from Kennedy to Kavanaugh, but Chief Justice Roberts holds the key for what the future will look like.  It has been very rare in history for the center-most justice to also be in the role of Chief, so this will be a fascinating case study for future historians regardless of the politics.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 150: Protecting Jet Li's Ninja Moves

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we discuss a story brought to our attention by Brian Dunaway and Stephen King on Twitter, that being the revelation that Jet Li turned down a major role in the Matrix sequels to protect his creative interests in his own martial arts moves.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp150 

The role of Seraph in the Matrix sequels had an interesting history behind the scenes.  Originally this iconic role was written as a woman and offered to Michelle Yeoh, most recently of Star Trek Discovery fame, but she turned it down for scheduling conflicts.  The Wachowski brothers then rewrote the part as a man and offered it to Jet Li, famous martial artist.  But he turned the part down as well, which led to Collin Chou taking on the role in the final films.  This turn of events is interesting enough, but the reasons Li turned down the role are even more interesting.

The movie crew wanted Jet Li to film his parts in the movie over a 3-month window, and then spend 6 more months doing motion capture to make a digital library of all his martial arts moves.  Li turned down the role based on this latter requirement because he did not agree to the terms offered in the contract, including that the digital library of martial arts moves would be owned by the studio as the studio's IP at the end of the filming.

So Matrix fans were denied having one of the highest artisans in the field of martial arts play in these movies over this desire to create and own a digital library of stored martial arts moves. You may be asking, what legal protection grounds was Jet Li standing on or trying to protect by this move?  As always in legal world, it's fairly complicated.

Although not common based on the long history of martial arts, it would be theoretically possible to hold a copyright in Li's particular expression of martial arts moves, in other words, the artistic expression he creates when performing those moves.  It is unclear whether such a copyright would be able to be successfully registered by federal governments, as a similar attempt by Eddie Van Halen to register a copyright in his guitar playing moves failed many years ago.  But certainly, there's a possible claim under IP that Jet Li would be undermining if he gave these rights to the Matrix filmmakers.

Regardless of this bigger question, Jet Li could certainly contractually give up his rights to whatever moves he allowed to be captured by motion capture if he had done the 6 months of work as requested by the Wachowski brothers.  In other words, the filmed or digital captured moves is a recording that certainly creates potential copyright in the recording itself, which could be contracted away.  Then the question would become how limiting the grant of rights in the contract was because Jet Li would want to be able to continue to provide his skills in the martial arts and film communities, without risking breaking the contract.  We don't know the specific terms of the contract, unfortunately, but Li appears to express concern that he would not be able to compete as he aged with a digital library of moves he created at a younger age.  That concern seems reasonable.

So legally, Jet Li did have some valid concerns or grounds to protect in this regard, but the downside is that we end up not having a motion capture collection of his best moves to share in the public domain when any copyright or other legal rights lapse and go into the public domain.  It's an understandable conclusion, even if it's a frustrating one.

The Bottom Line is, legal fields such as copyright extend much farther than people realize sometimes, and it is wise of top artisans like Jet Li to be aware of his rights before signing contracts.  Despite not seeing Li in the Matrix movies, we thankfully have plenty of other films to enjoy his martial arts in, including the upcoming live action Mulan from Disney in 2020.  One would guess Disney won't be asking for 6 months of motion capture in that endeavor.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 149: Amazon Reviews lead to FTC Penalties

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we introduce this segment's listeners to a new area of law that always provides interesting developments, that being consumer laws and enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp149 

The Federal Trade Commission was founded in 1914 to help prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce, with the organization growing in power and authority over the past 100 years.  Interestingly, the organization is headed by five Commissioners who have to split in politics by a 3-2 margin between the two major parties.  This provides some consistency despite a lot of turnover in the five leadership roles over time.

This week, let's introduce you to the FTC by looking at one of their recent interesting enforcement actions taken against a company called Mikey and Momo, who sold an Aromaflage spray product and candles that allegedly were insect and mosquito repellant.  Aromaflage used a marketing campaign centered on the phrase "fragrance with function," again referring to the claims that the products were effective repellants for mosquitos carrying Zika and other viruses.  However, there was no scientific evidence to back up these claims, making them false and misleading to consumers.

That's precisely the type of activity that the FTC was created to stop, and hence, they brought a case against Mikey and Momo to stop this deceptive marketing.  There was another angle to the case that caught my attention though, as it implies bigger impact for many more small companies and individuals doing business online.

The Aromaflage products had several 5-star reviews posted very quickly after the product release on Amazon.  The FTC discovered that all of these 5-star reviews were written by one of the owners of the business or her relatives.  The FTC in the final consent order against the company required this company to clearly and conspicuously disclose any material connections with reviewers and endorsers on Amazon and other online platforms in the future.  In other words, getting your mom and aunt to post glowing product reviews to boost your initial Amazon ratings was deemed a deceptive business practice the FTC wants to curtail.

Obviously this type of administrative ruling could have far reach if it begins to be enforced against small sellers who often engage in such boosted reviews to have a chance on the open marketplace.  The risk is that if the product becomes successful, these reviews could lead to FTC fines and orders against the company later.  In the short term, if you do business on these online platforms or anywhere reviews are posted, you should make sure any connections you have to reviewers is properly disclosed, whether that be you giving free product to a reviewer or a familial relation.

The Bottom Line is, the FTC often defines the course for what is appropriate under marketing and consumer protection rules, and this month's ruling against Aromaflage is one of the first notable decisions looking to change biased online commenting on commerce sites.  We will keep our eyes on how the FTC affects our tech world and online consumer world as we move forward, as the government organization often provides much to discuss.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Legal Geek No. 148: Comicsgate Leader files Defamation Suit

Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we cover a story from the Current Geek subreddit suggested by Action_Nate, on how the leader of the Comicsgate movement is suing a DC/Marvel writer for defamation and tortious interference with contract following a public feud online.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp148 

Richard Meyer is the figurehead for Comicsgate, and he is known for his conservative reactionary views often expressed on YouTube videos.  He has provoked harassment campaigns in the past against women and minorities in that industry, and he created his own comic names Jawbreakers about a team of former superheroes who are a response to his perceived progressive bias in the comics of Marvel and DC.  If you're unfamiliar with him, you can think of him as an analogue to Alex Jones or Fox News, just in the comic book industry.

Jawbreakers was to be published by a small indie publisher Antarctic Press, but the publisher backed off in response to public pressure from the comic community about Meyer.  This pressure came from several major retailers as well as prominent artists and writers in the comic field, including Mark Waid.  Waid specifically posted to Facebook that he put a call in Antarctic Press to explain the type of person Meyer is and why he believed they would be making a mistake to put out Jawbreakers.

When Antarctic Press backed off, Meyer turned to Indiegogo to fund his Jawbreakers comic, and then he turned to the court this month to sue Waid for defamation and tortious interference with contract.  While Meyer actually benefitted from the controversy in that he drummed up more support for his culture wars comic, as he styles it, he still wants to go after Waid as a representative of what he sees as the establishment in comics, AKA, the folks keeping his views suppressed.  But does Meyer have a chance to win here?

Although each state defines defamation a little differently, it generally requires a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation and published with negligence or malice against the subject.  The key question here is whether any of Waid's statements about Meyer were false.  It seems based on Meyer's reputation and history on YouTube and other social media platforms, it will be difficult to prove any of the published comments to be false, and even if one is false, it is questionable whether they really harmed Meyer's reputation in a meaningful way.  It seems defamation will be a hard sell for someone in Meyer's position.

Turning to tortious interference with contract, the elements required include actual interference with a contract by a third party who intends to interfere with the contract, and in an improper manner that causes damage to the plaintiff.  While Waid clearly left a voicemail message to Antarctic Press about his concerns with publishing Meyer's work, the publisher is not indicating that made any difference in their decision to back out of the publication.  There were a lot of other potential factors and influencers in that decision.  That will make it a gray area if this claim can have any traction in court, and the damages caused are unclear even if the claim is successful, in view of the later success of the Indiegogo campaign.

Perhaps the biggest indicator we have is that Waid has hired a well-known powerful lawyer Mark Zaid, who has been very successful in this field on high profile cases like suing Libya over the Pan Am bombing.  An imbalance in the sophistication of the counsel in this case makes it even more likely that these claims will be picked apart and likely unsuccessful.  But going against the establishment is on brand for Richard Meyer, so maybe this is all part of his plan.

The Bottom Line is, as the political world around us becomes more polarized, these types of legal conflicts will increase where those of minority views or perceived minority views feel suppressed and discriminated against by industry.  It's an unfortunate side effect of the world we're in at the moment, but this particular case seems doomed to fail, by this attorney's eyes.

Thanks again to Action Nate for the subreddit suggestion, and also a quick shoutout to Jeff Rose for linking another interesting legal story we didn't cover in which Utah must cover almost half a million in legal fees after losing a lawsuit over a movie theater selling alcohol during a screening of Deadpool two years ago.  Ouch to Scott Johnson's home state!  Check out the subreddit for more on that, and please continue to send suggestions for the main show and this segment.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy