Assassin's Creed Copyright Suit Lawyer Speaks Out

[Nghtgnt]

...While I'm no lawyer, I do recall that you can't copyright ideas, only the expressions of an idea. A machine that reads genetic memory? That's an idea. The animus being used by Assassins in a war against templars? That's the expression of that idea...

I think you're right - I remember seeing this explanation a while back when looking up the subject. I'm surprised this hasn't come up more. It's a shame they can't settle this by, say, just throwing a copy of Dune at the guy.

Personally I dislike Ubisoft (I'm still angry about their old DRM practices), but I hope they they win this and don't just pay him to get this over with. What would be absolutely HILARIOUS though is if Ubisoft wins this in court and the guy has to pay their legal fees due to it being a frivolous lawsuit (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy ).

 

[robert022614]

"All I can say is that Keller is an experienced-sounding lawyer with a website"

So did anyone else see this line as an invitation to mess with said lawyer?

Dude, did you read the experience section on her site? I wouldn't try to mess with this lady. She has Esquire after her name. The link was more or less the only info I could find on her career in law, so it was included. (Also I was totally not inviting any messings, sorry if it came off like that.)

Lol yea I clicked the link and chuckled a little at the esquire thing. I'm not saying you did it intentionally or anything so sorry if I sound like I am bashing you.It's just when you see a link to anything that involves something like this the net usually runs with it .

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I'm sure the link between ideas in Link and Total Recall are closer than AC. Someone get Philip K. Dick's estate on the line, they should sue this guy to hell and back for the glory of the troll god.

 

[Nerexor]

Last time this was reported on I noted that no one -bar perhaps two or three people- had even *possibly* read the book in question. And once again, people are commenting (a lot of them very angrily) about a man and his works without ever having encountered said man, or read said book. Could at least one of you try researching a topic, or at least having a firm grasp of its internal workings before commenting on it? I've made that mistake before, and it made me look like a dick, how do you think you all look? The hell of it is, someone's gonna get pissy because I said that.

When it first came to light I looked over his actual claim filed against Ubi (Located here: http://www.bannerwitcoff.com/_docs/Ubisoft_Complaint.pdf ), which had excerpts of his book, and they were pretty terrible. Also the "publishing company" that made Link available is actually a platform for self publishing, which means that no major publisher was willing to pick it up. The book is only available via the laboriously named BuyBooksOnTheWeb.com, so no manjor booksellers are stocking it either.

Even the reviews of his work that are on his website (and all of those are anonymous) aren't exactly going to make me reach for the book:

"It's a little technical (biologically speaking) at first, but all necessarily so. You may need some resources to get you through some of that (e.g., biological dictionary), if that's not your background, but this is a thought and soul provoker. A must read!"
(Source: http://www.johnbeiswenger.com/author/)

The summary (or as he insists on calling it, the abstract) of the book is pretty clumsily written as well. Having read it several times I still don't have any real expectation as to what the book would be about. (Source: http://www.johnbeiswenger.com/author/link.htm)

And finally if we go to... *sigh* BuyBooksOnTheWeb.com and look up Link, we have access to a SNEAK PEEK! Let's see what we have... (source: http://www.buybooksontheweb.com/peek.aspx?id=1353)

Overly technical. A lot of needless clarifications "The ICs (integrated circuits or ?chips?) in the new machines..." (Yes John, we know what a chip is. Moving on.) The rest makes up for 7 paragraphs of pretty dull technical description of a computer mouse that I think provides a neural link so that you see windows and data projected across your vision. 7 rambling paragraphs to describe that.

I'm not saying that I have a detailed knowledge of the book from this. But if I picked it up in a bookstore and skimmed it, I'd put it back on the shelf and move on.

Also, Ghost in the Shell wants a word with you about stealing the projected neural interface idea.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Looks like classic copyright abuse.
Wait for the inevitable settlement, move on.

There's really nothing much else to talk about here.

 

[ScruffyMcBalls]

Last time this was reported on I noted that no one -bar perhaps two or three people- had even *possibly* read the book in question. And once again, people are commenting (a lot of them very angrily) about a man and his works without ever having encountered said man, or read said book. Could at least one of you try researching a topic, or at least having a firm grasp of its internal workings before commenting on it? I've made that mistake before, and it made me look like a dick, how do you think you all look? The hell of it is, someone's gonna get pissy because I said that.

When it first came to light I looked over his actual claim filed against Ubi (Located here: http://www.bannerwitcoff.com/_docs/Ubisoft_Complaint.pdf ), which had excerpts of his book, and they were pretty terrible. Also the "publishing company" that made Link available is actually a platform for self publishing, which means that no major publisher was willing to pick it up. The book is only available via the laboriously named BuyBooksOnTheWeb.com, so no manjor booksellers are stocking it either.

Even the reviews of his work that are on his website (and all of those are anonymous) aren't exactly going to make me reach for the book:

"It's a little technical (biologically speaking) at first, but all necessarily so. You may need some resources to get you through some of that (e.g., biological dictionary), if that's not your background, but this is a thought and soul provoker. A must read!"
(Source: http://www.johnbeiswenger.com/author/)

The summary (or as he insists on calling it, the abstract) of the book is pretty clumsily written as well. Having read it several times I still don't have any real expectation as to what the book would be about. (Source: http://www.johnbeiswenger.com/author/link.htm)

And finally if we go to... *sigh* BuyBooksOnTheWeb.com and look up Link, we have access to a SNEAK PEEK! Let's see what we have... (source: http://www.buybooksontheweb.com/peek.aspx?id=1353)

Overly technical. A lot of needless clarifications "The ICs (integrated circuits or ?chips?) in the new machines..." (Yes John, we know what a chip is. Moving on.) The rest makes up for 7 paragraphs of pretty dull technical description of a computer mouse that I think provides a neural link so that you see windows and data projected across your vision. 7 rambling paragraphs to describe that.

I'm not saying that I have a detailed knowledge of the book from this. But if I picked it up in a bookstore and skimmed it, I'd put it back on the shelf and move on.

Also, Ghost in the Shell wants a word with you about stealing the projected neural interface idea.

So to conclude, you haven't read the book? Not bitching here, I just wanted to make that clear. But fuck, at least you did some research (a fair bit I'll note) and you appear to possibly be the ONLY one here to have done so, and having read through even some of that crap I have to applaud you.

 

[Vivi22]

It's obvious this guy has a real case

Actually it's not obvious. The most he's claimed is that AC uses similar themes and some similar concepts to that of his book, but using similar themes and plot devices does not constitute infringement if they're used in materially different ways. Moreover, he hardly invented the concept of accessing ancestral memories. Hell, it was something which many characters were able to do in Dune, and probably reared its head before Frank Herbert wrote about it.

Maybe he really does have a case, but nothing he or his lawyer have said suggests he does. I'll be pretty surprised if he wins this.

 

[Metalrocks]

I hope that the truth will prevail. If the man has a legitimate claim to the idea of the Animus to the extent that it isn't just similar, then I hope he wins. Otherwise I want Ubisoft to make sure there is a publication ban on the proceedings so the author's name and book vanish from the face of the planet.

i think ubisoft will win. i mean, seriously. his book has hardly anything to do with the story line of AC. only because the machine does sort of something similar, doesnt mean he will win. ubisoft might use the excuse that they have never heard of the book. ubisoft can also hire the best lawyers there are and bend some rules to make ubi look good and this guy look very bad.

@nerexor
nice research there. from the sound of it, "ghost in the shell" surely would like to have a word with him.

 

[Amnestic]

It's obvious this guy has a real case

Actually it's not obvious. The most he's claimed is that AC uses similar themes and some similar concepts to that of his book, but using similar themes and plot devices does not constitute infringement if they're used in materially different ways. Moreover, he hardly invented the concept of accessing ancestral memories. Hell, it was something which many characters were able to do in Dune, and probably reared its head before Frank Herbert wrote about it.

Maybe he really does have a case, but nothing he or his lawyer have said suggests he does. I'll be pretty surprised if he wins this.

Those 'mystics' who tell you who you were in a 'previous life' have been doing this shit for years.

Assassin's Creed just added a science-y spin on it and connected it with some pseudo-science DNA stuff.

 

[Denamic]

I wrote a short novel back in grade school as an assignment where I used amnesia as a plot device.
Maybe I'll sue people who also use amnesia as a plot device in their works, as you can apparently do that now.

 

[Nerexor]

SNIP

So to conclude, you haven't read the book? Not bitching here, I just wanted to make that clear. But fuck, at least you did some research (a fair bit I'll note) and you appear to possibly be the ONLY one here to have done so, and having read through even some of that crap I have to applaud you.

I haven't been able to find a copy of it. I'm not about to shell out cash for it, and the only platforms it's available on would take cost of the book, shipping fees, then I'd have to pick up the book from the FedEx offices since they only try to deliver stuff to me while I'm at work... WAY more effort than I'm willing to put in just to prove what I think I can reasonably assume, having read numerous excerpts from the book.

It's one thing to complain that nobody has read the book if its sitting in your local library (it's not at mine, anyways) or is in bookstores where you can page through it with ease. But this thing is only available to be bought through online retailers like amazon or that buybooksonline website I referenced before.

Of course this also makes the lawsuit all the more laughable, given that not only is the book obscure but you have to go to a lot of effort to even look through the text.

 

[orangeapples]

wouldn't they have to prove that the creators of AC read his work and decided to copy it? Because coincidences like that do happen where 2 people will think of the same concept. This would be the same as a company reverse-engineering something from another company. If they can prove that they did x amount of research and planning and came to the same conclusion without looking at the other item in question, they're good to go with no legal problems.

 

[ScruffyMcBalls]

SNIP

So to conclude, you haven't read the book? Not bitching here, I just wanted to make that clear. But fuck, at least you did some research (a fair bit I'll note) and you appear to possibly be the ONLY one here to have done so, and having read through even some of that crap I have to applaud you.

I haven't been able to find a copy of it. I'm not about to shell out cash for it, and the only platforms it's available on would take cost of the book, shipping fees, then I'd have to pick up the book from the FedEx offices since they only try to deliver stuff to me while I'm at work... WAY more effort than I'm willing to put in just to prove what I think I can reasonably assume, having read numerous excerpts from the book.

It's one thing to complain that nobody has read the book if its sitting in your local library (it's not at mine, anyways) or is in bookstores where you can page through it with ease. But this thing is only available to be bought through online retailers like amazon or that buybooksonline website I referenced before.

Of course this also makes the lawsuit all the more laughable, given that not only is the book obscure but you have to go to a lot of effort to even look through the text.

Oh, I appreciate it's not easy to get a hold of (or cheap for that matter) and I'm fine with people doing the kind of research you've done then sharing a view on the story, which is then open to debate. What I object to is people not doing ANY research and then making final, "conclusive" statements with no leeway that throws a man's work and character into disrepute.
Not like this matters, the brighter amongst us like yourself will back up your arguments and the... not so bright, amongst us, will just cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war blindly and with the passion of an electric fan, without first thinking things through.

 

[Nerexor]

Oh, I appreciate it's not easy to get a hold of (or cheap for that matter) and I'm fine with people doing the kind of research you've done then sharing a view on the story, which is then open to debate. What I object to is people not doing ANY research and then making final, "conclusive" statements with no leeway that throws a man's work and character into disrepute.
Not like this matters, the brighter amongst us like yourself will back up your arguments and the... not so bright, amongst us, will just cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war blindly and with the passion of an electric fan, without first thinking things through.

Heh, more like cry havoc and let slip the Amazon bombings. We gamers tend to be a defensive lot, given how often video games get blamed for things by unthinking pundits, and when a well liked title is attacked... Well, some people strike first and think later.

 

[Alex Richmond]

The author is suing because the book bombed and somebody is a similar concept took off. Say all you want about Ubisoft but there getting sued because they making money. its how failures work, they are upset, and instead of moving on or improving they attack others hoping to get money they think they deserve and hurt the other guy.

I also want to point out this person wrote a book for those who don't believe in God (like the guy who wrote the golden compass) Bombed (like the guy who wrote the golden Compass), and has leached on to somebody else's success in the hopes they will be pulled up from the pile of muck there books have landed in (Golden compass when they compared them self's to harry potter). im not saying that being atheist means you will fail, im just saying it seems to have a poorer track record when it comes to this short of thing..

 

[Alex Richmond]

The author is suing because the book bombed and somebody is a similar concept took off. Say all you want about Ubisoft but there getting sued because they making money. its how failures work, they are upset, and instead of moving on or improving they attack others hoping to get money they think they deserve and hurt the other guy.

I also want to point out this person wrote a book for those who don't believe in God (like the guy who wrote the golden compass) Bombed (like the guy who wrote the golden Compass), and has leached on to somebody else's success in the hopes they will be pulled up from the pile of muck there books have landed in (Golden compass when they compared them self's to harry potter). im not saying that being atheist means you will fail, im just saying it seems to have a poorer track record when it comes to this short of thing..