If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Teller of Penn and Teller fame wins lawsuit over copied magic trick. When asked how he felt about his victory, he gleefully said   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 83
    More: Interesting, Penn Jillette, David Copperfield, Penn & Teller, performing rights, U.S. Copyright Office, material fact  
•       •       •

5667 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 23 Mar 2014 at 9:51 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-23 09:49:56 AM
You need to enter a comment! No one will know what you want to say!
 
2014-03-23 09:57:00 AM
Subby is saying Teller's a prostitute?
 
2014-03-23 09:58:03 AM
30.media.tumblr.com

I thought the headline said "Gleefully sad".
 
2014-03-23 10:14:03 AM
Good for him.
 
2014-03-23 10:15:37 AM
How libertarian of him.
 
2014-03-23 10:17:49 AM
.
 
2014-03-23 10:22:40 AM
Excellent.  Love P&T so much.

Excellent headline ripped right from the comments, Submiticopypaster!
 
2014-03-23 10:24:43 AM
For some reason, I suddenly have the urge to listen to Simon and Garfunkel.
 
2014-03-23 10:24:58 AM
I heard he was speechless with emotion.
 
2014-03-23 10:29:20 AM
I love Penn and Teller, but this is CLEARLY a bad move.

I see a dagger or scissors in Teller's act. This guy snaps his fingers. Sorry, Teller. You'll have to cry yourself to sleep on a pile of Vegas showgirl panties and $20 chips.
 
2014-03-23 10:34:48 AM

King Something: For some reason, I suddenly have the urge to listen to Simon and Garfunkel.


Strange.  I have the urge to listen to Garfunkel and Oates.
 
2014-03-23 10:34:55 AM
I dunno all the details, but after a first glance, it seems like a dick move to me.
 
2014-03-23 10:35:56 AM
I've read about this case before, and I love Penn & Teller, but...

This case always seemed like obnoxious overreaching on Teller's part, putting him in the same category as RIAA takedown goons who shut down family videos because a bot detected 3 seconds of Rihanna playing on the TV in the background.

Magicians and cooks and comics and writers borrow and steal and imitate. It's how arts and crafts work. Teller was not threatened in any way by this obscure dude. I'm sorry he felt it worth his time to litigate.

And coming from a guy whose early schtick was pretending to give away other magicians' secrets, it's kinda sad.
 
2014-03-23 10:36:15 AM
As much as I like Penn and Teller, this is bullshiat (pun intended). Penn and Teller have often revealed how different magic tricked were performed in an attempt to 'force magicians to come up with new tricks'. Now they are suing someone over a forty year old trick on the grounds that it's pantomime? Ridiculous.
 
2014-03-23 10:37:28 AM

doglover: I love Penn and Teller, but this is CLEARLY a bad move.

I see a dagger or scissors in Teller's act. This guy snaps his fingers. Sorry, Teller. You'll have to cry yourself to sleep on a pile of Vegas showgirl panties and $20 chips.


I know you're a reasonable guy, but you know it's not about the 'magic' trick, right?  I'm assuming you're just making funny.  You always get a chuckle out of me.
 
2014-03-23 10:37:32 AM
uh...somebody made a flower/stem cover for a small electro-magnetic device and this is a trick how?
 
2014-03-23 10:48:57 AM
I've seen the show, its not so much a "trick", but a part of the " show", and one he seems particularly fond and proud of. I feel it is less a dick move and more of a protection of the legacy of his work.
 
2014-03-23 10:50:49 AM

Nightenstaff: As much as I like Penn and Teller, this is bullshiat (pun intended). Penn and Teller have often revealed how different magic tricked were performed in an attempt to 'force magicians to come up with new tricks'. Now they are suing someone over a forty year old trick on the grounds that it's pantomime? Ridiculous.


Great minds... we got 'em.
 
2014-03-23 10:53:02 AM

AltheaToldMe: doglover: I love Penn and Teller, but this is CLEARLY a bad move.

I see a dagger or scissors in Teller's act. This guy snaps his fingers. Sorry, Teller. You'll have to cry yourself to sleep on a pile of Vegas showgirl panties and $20 chips.

I know you're a reasonable guy, but you know it's not about the 'magic' trick, right?  I'm assuming you're just making funny.  You always get a chuckle out of me.


I just watched the other guy's version. It's a very different act.

But the selling it for $3,000 is a kick in the balls to Teller, so fark him.

At the same time, the way you should fark him is not via the US patent office. Patent's more than 10 years old. You have new tricks, Teller. DEAL WITH IT.
 
2014-03-23 10:56:17 AM

Mtop18: I've seen the show, its not so much a "trick", but a part of the " show", and one he seems particularly fond and proud of. I feel it is less a dick move and more of a protection of the legacy of his work.


Which is a dick move. This particular copier explicitly paid homage to the originator,and got sued for it. Some legacy. Way to respect your own art.

Anyway it's exactly this kind of flourish-heavy and trick-light routine that I DON'T like in P&T's act. Sometimes they spend too much time in their own butts and forget to do magic.
 
2014-03-23 11:06:07 AM

Far Cough: I've read about this case before, and I love Penn & Teller, but...

This case always seemed like obnoxious overreaching on Teller's part, putting him in the same category as RIAA takedown goons who shut down family videos because a bot detected 3 seconds of Rihanna playing on the TV in the background.

Magicians and cooks and comics and writers borrow and steal and imitate. It's how arts and crafts work. Teller was not threatened in any way by this obscure dude. I'm sorry he felt it worth his time to litigate.

And coming from a guy whose early schtick was pretending to give away other magicians' secrets, it's kinda sad.


Yeah, yeah, yeah... Preformers own NOTHING of their works and you should be able to tske and do anything with them simply because you want and they deserve no compensation. Your parents did a STELLAR job of raising you there, snowflake.

The guy was offering the secret of the trick for sale which clearly devalues Teller's performancein of the trick. He was right to sue and the judgement was correctn
 
2014-03-23 11:08:49 AM

Far Cough: Mtop18: I've seen the show, its not so much a "trick", but a part of the " show", and one he seems particularly fond and proud of. I feel it is less a dick move and more of a protection of the legacy of his work.

Which is a dick move. This particular copier explicitly paid homage to the originator,and got sued for it. Some legacy. Way to respect your own art.

Anyway it's exactly this kind of flourish-heavy and trick-light routine that I DON'T like in P&T's act. Sometimes they spend too much time in their own butts and forget to do magic.


www.reactiongifs.us
 
2014-03-23 11:09:56 AM
Penn is taking this "Make Penn Bad" thing way too seriously in that gif.
 
2014-03-23 11:12:27 AM
I'd have had some sympathy for Dogge if he hadn't offered to sell the trick for over $3k.  Figuring out the trick is one thing- magicians and laypeople do that constantly.  Even performing a knockoff using a similar method is common in magic. But *selling* someone else's trick?

The defense of "P&T show people how magic tricks are done" doesn't really stand up- the ones they show off like the cups and balls is ancient, discoverable to anyone with even the smallest bit of research and used by magicians everywhere.  They aren't showing off other magician's custom illusions.
 
2014-03-23 11:16:20 AM
"Because it tells me to."
 
2014-03-23 11:18:10 AM
Morons: make up your minds. Is the issue the pantomime art being infringed (per the article) or a patented method being sold? My god you people are stupid. Teller is a dick either way, but pick a position.
 
2014-03-23 11:18:22 AM

Far Cough: Mtop18: I've seen the show, its not so much a "trick", but a part of the " show", and one he seems particularly fond and proud of. I feel it is less a dick move and more of a protection of the legacy of his work.

Which is a dick move. This particular copier explicitly paid homage to the originator,and got sued for it. Some legacy. Way to respect your own art.

Anyway it's exactly this kind of flourish-heavy and trick-light routine that I DON'T like in P&T's act. Sometimes they spend too much time in their own butts and forget to do magic.


Which clearly says you COMPLETELY miss the point of their act. People are going to see Penn and Teller and not "the tricks". It is those flourishes that ARE the appeal.
 
2014-03-23 11:25:13 AM

Far Cough: Morons: make up your minds. Is the issue the pantomime art being infringed (per the article) or a patented method being sold? My god you people are stupid. Teller is a dick either way, but pick a position.


Moron we HAVE made up our minds. Because magic trick or pantomime if he is selling the secret so anyone else can do it it makes Teller's version that he copied less unique. Thus devaluing it. Get it now?
 
2014-03-23 11:47:49 AM
CSB:

A few years back I worked a live show with Penn & Teller. They were nice enough guys, but Teller was a hoot. Whenever he was offstage, he was constantly cracking jokes. He never shut up until he walked back onstage.

Also, kind of amusingly, Teller is one of (I believe) 3 Americans issued a passport with just one name. Yep. Teller. That's it, just Teller.
 
2014-03-23 11:47:58 AM

Far Cough: Mtop18: I've seen the show, its not so much a "trick", but a part of the " show", and one he seems particularly fond and proud of. I feel it is less a dick move and more of a protection of the legacy of his work.

Which is a dick move. This particular copier explicitly paid homage to the originator,and got sued for it. Some legacy. Way to respect your own art.

Anyway it's exactly this kind of flourish-heavy and trick-light routine that I DON'T like in P&T's act. Sometimes they spend too much time in their own butts and forget to do magic.


As the judge said, it's the copying of the performance aspect of it rather than the trick itself.  The guy should have done the trick with a different object in a different setting, rather than stating that he was copying Teller and selling the trick even if the methods behind the trick are somehow different.

thefatbasturd: Which clearly says you COMPLETELY miss the point of their act. People are going to see Penn and Teller and not "the tricks". It is those flourishes that ARE the appeal.


This is true

thefatbasturd: Moron we HAVE made up our minds. Because magic trick or pantomime if he is selling the secret so anyone else can do it it makes Teller's version that he copied less unique. Thus devaluing it. Get it now?


But I think this is false.  The pantomime is the infringed part.  Selling the secret is the motivation for Teller to go to the courts because it's an extra kick in the pants.
 
2014-03-23 11:49:41 AM

thefatbasturd: Which clearly says you COMPLETELY miss the point of their act. People are going to see Penn and Teller and not "the tricks". It is those flourishes that ARE the appeal.


Best trick I ever saw them do was on Letterman, and was an old card trick. But they used giant 3x4" cards and "shuffled" them with forklifts. Nothing but flourish....
 
2014-03-23 11:50:48 AM

thefatbasturd: Far Cough: Morons: make up your minds. Is the issue the pantomime art being infringed (per the article) or a patented method being sold? My god you people are stupid. Teller is a dick either way, but pick a position.

Moron we HAVE made up our minds. Because magic trick or pantomime if he is selling the secret so anyone else can do it it makes Teller's version that he copied less unique. Thus devaluing it. Get it now?


Moron (guess it's really just you), he wasn't sued for "selling the secret", at all. He was sued for copying a performance. And somehow lost; maybe the judge was from east Texas and loves ridiculous claims.

If he never performed it, but just sold the "secret" kits or just described the trick, it seems there would have been no case.
 
2014-03-23 11:56:46 AM
For the record I was wrong to use the word "patent" earlier. It seems no patent was involved. But at least I wasn't stupid enough to claim the suit was over selling secrets.
 
2014-03-23 12:03:10 PM

Far Cough: He was sued for copying a performance.


Yes - he performed it and distributed it on YouTube

Far Cough: And somehow lost;


I am not sure why you are uncertain, unless you, like the court, have seen both videos and compared them under the substantial similarity test.

Far Cough: maybe the judge was from east Texas and loves ridiculous claims.


Ah, now i understand your confusion.  You don't know the difference between patent suits which are often brought in Marshall, and copyright suits, which are usually brought in California or New York.  If you are going to knee-jerk disagree with a court opinion you appear to know little about, it helps to actually read from the right knee-jerk script.  "Hollywood judges," or "in the pocket of the RIAA"  these should be the buzzwords, not disparagements of the Eastern District of Texas.  

Far Cough: If he never performed it, but just sold the "secret" kits or just described the trick, it seems there would have been no case


Likely true.  Of course if we are dealing with counterfactuals we could also argue that if he killed Teller he would be charged for murder and if he were a bird he would be outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
 
2014-03-23 12:06:48 PM

bhcompy: Far Cough: Mtop18: I've seen the show, its not so much a "trick", but a part of the " show", and one he seems particularly fond and proud of. I feel it is less a dick move and more of a protection of the legacy of his work.

Which is a dick move. This particular copier explicitly paid homage to the originator,and got sued for it. Some legacy. Way to respect your own art.

Anyway it's exactly this kind of flourish-heavy and trick-light routine that I DON'T like in P&T's act. Sometimes they spend too much time in their own butts and forget to do magic.

As the judge said, it's the copying of the performance aspect of it rather than the trick itself.  The guy should have done the trick with a different object in a different setting, rather than stating that he was copying Teller and selling the trick even if the methods behind the trick are somehow different.

thefatbasturd: Which clearly says you COMPLETELY miss the point of their act. People are going to see Penn and Teller and not "the tricks". It is those flourishes that ARE the appeal.

This is true

thefatbasturd: Moron we HAVE made up our minds. Because magic trick or pantomime if he is selling the secret so anyone else can do it it makes Teller's version that he copied less unique. Thus devaluing it. Get it now?

But I think this is false.  The pantomime is the infringed part.  Selling the secret is the motivation for Teller to go to the courts because it's an extra kick in the pants.


That's just it. The way I see it by selling a way to DO the pantomime he infinged on the patent, thus causing the harm to Teller.
 
2014-03-23 12:07:55 PM
If he did a trick similar to teller's he'd be fine. He specifically was selling the trick based on it being tellers. 'Hey I have this cool trick, for 3k you can find out how its done' is legal. 'Hey I can do teller's trick, for 3k you can find out how teller's trick is done' is a lot more complicated, and harmful to teller's interests, legally speaking.
 
2014-03-23 12:11:35 PM

Teiritzamna: Far Cough: He was sued for copying a performance.

Yes - he performed it and distributed it on YouTube

Far Cough: And somehow lost;

I am not sure why you are uncertain, unless you, like the court, have seen both videos and compared them under the substantial similarity test.

Far Cough: maybe the judge was from east Texas and loves ridiculous claims.

Ah, now i understand your confusion.  You don't know the difference between patent suits which are often brought in Marshall, and copyright suits, which are usually brought in California or New York.  If you are going to knee-jerk disagree with a court opinion you appear to know little about, it helps to actually read from the right knee-jerk script.  "Hollywood judges," or "in the pocket of the RIAA"  these should be the buzzwords, not disparagements of the Eastern District of Texas.  

Far Cough: If he never performed it, but just sold the "secret" kits or just described the trick, it seems there would have been no case

Likely true.  Of course if we are dealing with counterfactuals we could also argue that if he killed Teller he would be charged for murder and if he were a bird he would be outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts.


You mean the RIAA that I cited in my Boobies in this thread? That RIAA?

I was implying a similarity of mindset regarding the judge and the patent troll judges and juries, yes. Are you wholly incapable of logical thought? It appears so.
 
2014-03-23 12:13:30 PM

Far Cough: thefatbasturd: Far Cough: Morons: make up your minds. Is the issue the pantomime art being infringed (per the article) or a patented method being sold? My god you people are stupid. Teller is a dick either way, but pick a position.

Moron we HAVE made up our minds. Because magic trick or pantomime if he is selling the secret so anyone else can do it it makes Teller's version that he copied less unique. Thus devaluing it. Get it now?

Moron (guess it's really just you), he wasn't sued for "selling the secret", at all. He was sued for copying a performance. And somehow lost; maybe the judge was from east Texas and loves ridiculous claims.

If he never performed it, but just sold the "secret" kits or just described the trick, it seems there would have been no case.


Moron the selling of the secret was part of the video in question. Had he just done the trick in the video and not tried to make money off of someone else's illusion in it he probably would have been alright.
 
2014-03-23 12:14:45 PM

thefatbasturd: bhcompy: Far Cough: Mtop18: I've seen the show, its not so much a "trick", but a part of the " show", and one he seems particularly fond and proud of. I feel it is less a dick move and more of a protection of the legacy of his work.

Which is a dick move. This particular copier explicitly paid homage to the originator,and got sued for it. Some legacy. Way to respect your own art.

Anyway it's exactly this kind of flourish-heavy and trick-light routine that I DON'T like in P&T's act. Sometimes they spend too much time in their own butts and forget to do magic.

As the judge said, it's the copying of the performance aspect of it rather than the trick itself.  The guy should have done the trick with a different object in a different setting, rather than stating that he was copying Teller and selling the trick even if the methods behind the trick are somehow different.

thefatbasturd: Which clearly says you COMPLETELY miss the point of their act. People are going to see Penn and Teller and not "the tricks". It is those flourishes that ARE the appeal.

This is true

thefatbasturd: Moron we HAVE made up our minds. Because magic trick or pantomime if he is selling the secret so anyone else can do it it makes Teller's version that he copied less unique. Thus devaluing it. Get it now?

But I think this is false.  The pantomime is the infringed part.  Selling the secret is the motivation for Teller to go to the courts because it's an extra kick in the pants.

That's just it. The way I see it by selling a way to DO the pantomime he infinged on the patent, thus causing the harm to Teller.


Oh... So you've been trolling. Sorry I didn't see. (That statement makes no sense at all, and only partly because no patents are involved.)
 
2014-03-23 12:16:52 PM

NickelP: l. 'Hey I can do teller's trick, for 3k you can find out how teller's trick is done' is a lot more complicated, and harmful to teller's interests, legally speaking.


Actually its the reverse.

Magic tricks are considered trade secrets - they are ineligible for copyright protection.  Think the recipe for Coke.  If the dude had snuck into Teller's   dressing room and stolen the trick's secret it would be protectable.  If teller's employee had broken a confidentiality agreement and blabbed, it would be protectable, but under the law if you figure out a trade secret through observation or reverse engineering, you can sell it to whomever you want.  Its generally considered one of the hard choices - disclose how you make something in a patent, get a monopoly for 20 years and then its open season, or keep it secret but know that if anyone reverse engineers your shiat the genie is out of the bag.

The performance however, that is good old fashioned copyright - just like if he performed in a movie.  By copying the artistic performance - the flower shadows etc, the guy breached Teller's copyrights.
 
2014-03-23 12:20:24 PM

Teiritzamna: NickelP: l. 'Hey I can do teller's trick, for 3k you can find out how teller's trick is done' is a lot more complicated, and harmful to teller's interests, legally speaking.

Actually its the reverse.

Magic tricks are considered trade secrets - they are ineligible for copyright protection.  Think the recipe for Coke.  If the dude had snuck into Teller's   dressing room and stolen the trick's secret it would be protectable.  If teller's employee had broken a confidentiality agreement and blabbed, it would be protectable, but under the law if you figure out a trade secret through observation or reverse engineering, you can sell it to whomever you want.  Its generally considered one of the hard choices - disclose how you make something in a patent, get a monopoly for 20 years and then its open season, or keep it secret but know that if anyone reverse engineers your shiat the genie is out of the bag.

The performance however, that is good old fashioned copyright - just like if he performed in a movie.  By copying the artistic performance - the flower shadows etc, the guy breached Teller's copyrights.


Which is really weird.

It should be the reverse, and only for 10 years. After 10 years, public domain.
 
2014-03-23 12:21:30 PM

Far Cough: Teiritzamna: Far Cough: Are you wholly incapable of logical thought?


Not usually no.  What you were doing however was so far afield from the usual parameters of what is considered logical, i must admit i could not follow you into the wilderness of your analogy.  I got you now tho, so thanks for the clarification.  

Next time, if you want to make unbacked attacks at a legal decision you don't understand, make your "logical" leaps a bit more constrained so we can understand exactly the scope of your misunderstandings.  Otherwise, alas, your specifically ignorant message may again get swamped in the general ignorance of how that message was conveyed.
 
2014-03-23 12:24:43 PM

doglover: Which is really weird.

It should be the reverse, and only for 10 years. After 10 years, public domain.


Well magic is definitely an odd duck.  I mean trade secret is usually reserved for industrial processes, sales and marketing strategies, and occasionally the odd bit of code.  Magic may in fact be the only trade secret performance or artistic expression i can think of.

Also as to the 10 years, are you talking about the protections for copyrights generally, magic tricks, or trade secrets?  Because if it is the last one, that would pretty much mean trade secrets would disappear as they would be shiattier than patents.  Not attacking, just trying to figure out your argument.
 
2014-03-23 12:26:35 PM

Teiritzamna: NickelP: l. 'Hey I can do teller's trick, for 3k you can find out how teller's trick is done' is a lot more complicated, and harmful to teller's interests, legally speaking.

Actually its the reverse.

Magic tricks are considered trade secrets - they are ineligible for copyright protection.  Think the recipe for Coke.  If the dude had snuck into Teller's   dressing room and stolen the trick's secret it would be protectable.  If teller's employee had broken a confidentiality agreement and blabbed, it would be protectable, but under the law if you figure out a trade secret through observation or reverse engineering, you can sell it to whomever you want.  Its generally considered one of the hard choices - disclose how you make something in a patent, get a monopoly for 20 years and then its open season, or keep it secret but know that if anyone reverse engineers your shiat the genie is out of the bag.

The performance however, that is good old fashioned copyright - just like if he performed in a movie.  By copying the artistic performance - the flower shadows etc, the guy breached Teller's copyrights.


we aren't talking trade secrets and patents though. We are walking copy rights (which we agree on). The basis of the guys business in this instance relied of his product being associated with tellers copyrighted trick/performance. it is nearly worthless without teller's association, which is the point of the lawsuit.

I am not saying teller is right btw, at least legally, I just don't have much empathy for this guy leaching off of his success.
 
2014-03-23 12:27:37 PM

Teiritzamna: Far Cough: Teiritzamna: Far Cough: Are you wholly incapable of logical thought?

Not usually no.  What you were doing however was so far afield from the usual parameters of what is considered logical, i must admit i could not follow you into the wilderness of your analogy.  I got you now tho, so thanks for the clarification.  

Next time, if you want to make unbacked attacks at a legal decision you don't understand, make your "logical" leaps a bit more constrained so we can understand exactly the scope of your misunderstandings.  Otherwise, alas, your specifically ignorant message may again get swamped in the general ignorance of how that message was conveyed.


Fair enough. Pointlessly wordy, but fair enough. Also, I "understood" the decision just fine, and it was I who clarified the distinction between copyright and patent before anyone else in this thread, I believe. (Post beginning "for the record".). Hmm. Upon reflection, shove it.
 
2014-03-23 12:29:40 PM

doglover: Teiritzamna: NickelP: l. 'Hey I can do teller's trick, for 3k you can find out how teller's trick is done' is a lot more complicated, and harmful to teller's interests, legally speaking.

Actually its the reverse.

Magic tricks are considered trade secrets - they are ineligible for copyright protection.  Think the recipe for Coke.  If the dude had snuck into Teller's   dressing room and stolen the trick's secret it would be protectable.  If teller's employee had broken a confidentiality agreement and blabbed, it would be protectable, but under the law if you figure out a trade secret through observation or reverse engineering, you can sell it to whomever you want.  Its generally considered one of the hard choices - disclose how you make something in a patent, get a monopoly for 20 years and then its open season, or keep it secret but know that if anyone reverse engineers your shiat the genie is out of the bag.

The performance however, that is good old fashioned copyright - just like if he performed in a movie.  By copying the artistic performance - the flower shadows etc, the guy breached Teller's copyrights.

Which is really weird.

It should be the reverse, and only for 10 years. After 10 years, public domain.


Are you saying copyrights should only be ten years?
 
2014-03-23 12:31:20 PM

NickelP: we aren't talking trade secrets and patents though. We are walking copy rights (which we agree on). The basis of the guys business in this instance relied of his product being associated with tellers copyrighted trick/performance. it is nearly worthless without teller's association, which is the point of the lawsuit.


oh agreed - i was just saying that he could have had a claim for selling the trick itself, if it had been misappropriated.  But it appears the evidence is that the guy just figured it out himself and decided to make some cash, meaning copyright was the only real way to go for Teller.
 
2014-03-23 12:33:42 PM

Teiritzamna: NickelP: l. 'Hey I can do teller's trick, for 3k you can find out how teller's trick is done' is a lot more complicated, and harmful to teller's interests, legally speaking.

Actually its the reverse.

Magic tricks are considered trade secrets - they are ineligible for copyright protection.  Think the recipe for Coke.  If the dude had snuck into Teller's   dressing room and stolen the trick's secret it would be protectable.  If teller's employee had broken a confidentiality agreement and blabbed, it would be protectable, but under the law if you figure out a trade secret through observation or reverse engineering, you can sell it to whomever you want.  Its generally considered one of the hard choices - disclose how you make something in a patent, get a monopoly for 20 years and then its open season, or keep it secret but know that if anyone reverse engineers your shiat the genie is out of the bag.

The performance however, that is good old fashioned copyright - just like if he performed in a movie.  By copying the artistic performance - the flower shadows etc, the guy breached Teller's copyrights.


I get what you are saying and maybe didn't express my point well enough. My point is this has little to do with how the trick is done (ie patent/trade secret). This has everything to do with it mirroring tellers performance. In this case the defendant seems to self admit through his marketing that the value is derived through the copying of teller's performance, which as we noted and the judge notes is a valid copyright.
 
2014-03-23 12:33:54 PM

Teiritzamna: just trying to figure out your argument.


All patents last for 10 years, max. If you haven't done anything much with them in that time, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

For those that keep at it? Renewable in 1, 3, and 5 year chunks up to another 10 years based on how much you use it.
 
2014-03-23 12:36:46 PM

NickelP: I get what you are saying and maybe didn't express my point well enough. My point is this has little to do with how the trick is done (ie patent/trade secret). This has everything to do with it mirroring tellers performance. In this case the defendant seems to self admit through his marketing that the value is derived through the copying of teller's performance, which as we noted and the judge notes is a valid copyright.


Gotcha - yeah totally agree.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report