OK, so if Paramount loses (as I would expect), does this then mean that the lawsuit between Oracle and Google around speaking the language 'Java' gets an interesting precedent?
> Thus, this case should not be confused with the recent litigation over the Java computer language. As observed by the Federal Circuit, that case “was not a situation where Oracle was selecting among preordained names and phrases to create its packages.” Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014) cert den’d 135 S. Ct. 2887 (U.S. 2015). Here, speakers of Klingon are limited to preordained words and syntax. (Page 12)
This is called the 'doctrine of merger', I believe (IANAL):
> Furthermore, the doctrine of merger provides that if an idea “can only be expressed in a limited number of ways,” those means of expression “cannot be protected, lest one author own the idea itself.” (page 9)
Since Klingon words are not an exact transliteration of english words (not a 1-to-1 translation), you can't express the same ideas in multiple ways; so if the language were to be copyrightable, only the person who owns the languages could express those ideas, which seems patently silly.
(My legal analysis isn't; so I'm probably off on exactly why; that's why I spent most of my time quoting from the brief).
Imagine two related suits filed within weeks of each other, A & B. B, the later-filed one, gets resolved quickly, for whatever reason, maybe it has a narrower focus. It seems the lawyers and judge in A, filed-earlier but still ongoing, could look to B for precedent since it is a relevant piece of settled law.
IANAL, and I can see arguments on both sides of the issue, depending on the exact matter under discussion. But logically, it seems that the judgement is what matters most for precedent, not when the suit was filed or when the incidents happened.
It's an interesting question though. I hope a lawyer can set us straight.
Really, really long nouns in sentences stated very indirectly.