Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Two points, Morsul. Firstly, as Beth points out, these kind of things mostly don't get that far. Secondly, well, you seem to have a very odd idea of how a trial by jury works, anyway. I mean, you seem to think that what happens in court is basically irrelevant, and all that matters is what side the jurors "liked" best at the outset.
(And even on those terms, it's not as if Zaentz actually made the films...)
|
It would still seem fairly difficult to argue the Estate's case.
The gambling machines could go either way. The Tolkien Estate is trying to draw the line that gambling machines should not be allowed because it's merchandise that damages Tolkien and thus violates contractual agreements. Zaentz seems to believe since the copyright doesn't specifically exclude gambling machines and therefor it's fair game to continue slapping Tolkien characters and the LOTR brand on anything and everything.
I wish it was as simple as stopping the trash and junk the Zaentz co. licenses and pushes out to sell, but unfortunately passion and justice tends to give way to procedure and legal jargon. Both sides surely have a team of expensive and talented lawyers at their disposal.
I would guess the major decision is going to be over the gambling machines. But who can tell how that will turn out when the Estate wants to block the 'brand' from going onto the machines, and Zaentz is saying "well contractually it doesn't exclude gambling machines, therefor we should just be allowed to sell it." If there was already a separate agreement over permissable video games in '96, then I don't see what the TE could do about that part of the lawsuit.