HWcase1 Question 1

[pimpythepug]

 

Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to intellectual property. Online students will post their notes to their blog. Your notes should include the following.

• A link or other citation to the case you are using; if it is from personal experience, point that out.

• A list of 5 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.

• A list of questions (3 or more) that you could consider yourself or ask someone else about (for online students); see the “Questions to ask during discussion” tab on the course web page for some suggestions in developing your discussion questions.

Answer: The source of my case is https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/622/931/2395863/.

 

Five important facts are:

1. The general basis of the dispute was a disagreement about the use of the phrase “star wars” to refer to an anti-nuclear defense system in space.

2. LUCASFILM, the plaintiff, sought a resolution that would restrict the use of the phrase “star wars” when referring to the anti-nuclear defense system to protect the positive reputation of the space fantasy film franchise “STAR WARS”.

3. HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA had the upper hand in this case because what they were communicating with the phrase “star wars” was not a product or competitive agenda but an idea.

4. The case was heavily skewed towards the defendants, HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA because LUCASFILM’s “STAR WARS” used the words “star” and “wars” which were already a part of the public domain. LUCASFILM gave the phrase a second meaning, which caused conflict between the English language meaning, further hindering their case.

5. LUCASFILM was unable to receive the resolution they sought because the phrase “star” and “wars” were common words in the English language. Meaning they fell outside the scope of the copyright.

Three questions to ask about the case are:

1. Do you all think HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA unknowingly used the phrase “star wars” in relation to the franchise “STAR WARS” to further their political agenda? 

2. Every claim LUCASFILM made was rebutted by the court. Did LUCASFILM know the extent of their copyright’s power given that this case was so unfavorable to them?

3. Who do you all believe should have won this case? HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA or LUCASFILM?

Three additional standard questions:

• What does virtue ethics say about this case?

• What does utilitarianism say about this case?

• What does deontology say about this case?

Comments

My Answer to Question 1

[studentfs]

I believe they knew full well what they were doing. Take the most popular space franchise and apply it to an actual, potential, space war. I believe it was a case of do, then apologize later. Or get sued and win. I believe all parties won in this case, however. LUCASFILM gets free publicity in protecting their product, fandom, and a small part of their dream comes to life. HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA promote their product as a fantasy come to life and everyone knew it existed. A win-win situation disguised as a copyright claim.

[johnmssmith01]

HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA should have won the case because the phrase "star wars" should not be limited to being just the title of a franchise. If LUCASFILM had won, would that have inspired more argument over other uses of the phrase "star wars" in writing and media?

Answers

[discuss_ethics]

I think that High Frontier and the Committee for A Strong, Peaceful America purposely used the name "Star Wars" to allow their new military toy to piggyback off the fame of the Star Wars franchise. While this behavior was certainly legal since the military does not profit off of the new device, however this is operating under false pretenses. The government does in fact make money off of it's deployment of military and by making this new toy more favorable in the public eye, they made it more likely to be desirable by foreign nations. I highly doubt our government did not benefit monetarily from using the Star Wars name or they would not have bothered using it and fighting with Lucasfilms in the court of law. I believe some legal loopholes were utilized to avoid the consequences of their unethical behavior and unfortunately Lucasfilms just had to deal with it.

Answer to Question 3

[ethicalprofessinalism]

I think that LUCASFILM should have won this case. If I wrote a science fiction novel named "Star Wars" I think that would be a pretty obvious rip off of George Lucas's "Star Wats". The case gets a little trickier when we start to talk about things unrelated to science fiction stories (Like military infrastructure). However, in this case I think it's clear that HIGH FRONTIER and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA took a little more than just inspiration from the movies.

Sorry Star Wars

[wsilver]

It's a tough argument for Lucasfilm to make. While Star Wars is very popular, the words could just as easily refer to a war in the stars. Excluding unique names or made up words, it is difficult to prosecute on titles. I think Lucasfilm might have more of an argument if the offender was making a movie or book with that name, but something that is relatively unrelated to the franchise and no profit being made off it is hard to prosecute. I think utilitarian is the easiest to apply here, as it would evaluate the actual results of this in happiness, and I doubt it made much of impact on the franchise.

[uwu_teleportsbehindyou]

A utilitarian would probably believe that it would be more beneficial for High Frontier to win this case. Real world applications would mean more to a utilitarian than a work of fiction. High Frontier and COMMITTEE FOR A STRONG, PEACEFUL AMERICA should not have won the case but the political climate at the time probably swung the case in their favor.