Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?

from the the-force-is-not-strong-with-this-one dept

Consumerist points us to an odd story, where George Lucas has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Wicked Lasers, saying that the company's Pro Arctic Laser is too similar in design to the infamous lightsaber from the Star Wars flicks. But here's where it gets a little odd. Wicked Lasers claims that it doesn't market the product as a toy and has never suggested or marketed it as being anything like a lightsaber. In fact, it appears that Lucas' complaint is that blogs like Gizmodo and DailyTech have referred to it as some form of "real life lightsaber," and that this is somehow the company's fault. As for the similarities, well, below is a marketing photo of the Pro Arctic alongside a photo from someone who's apparently collecting all of the lightsabers used in the Star Wars movies. There may be some loose similarities, but does this mean that no similar handles could ever be used on a laser-like device?
The Pro Arctic (not a toy) laser from Wicked Lasers


Some lightsabers from various Star Wars movies (courtesy of OohYeah Zone)
I guess the argument is that if blogs are calling it a "lightsaber," that many people will make the similar leap. But that reasoning also seems to lead to troubling conclusions. Would it mean that no one could actually create a "lightsaber-like" device in reality without getting approval from George Lucas? That doesn't seem right...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:40am

    Hilariously, George Lucas doesn't even know what Lightsabers are supposed to be. I think they stopped being "Laser weapons" half a decade ago, and are probably jumping between other various Sci-Fi voodoos as we speak.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:43am

    How is that handle different from any other fancy flashlight handle?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:43am

    Hmm...

    One question: does the fact that blogs and members of the public so quickly associated the two give credence to consumer confusion?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:44am

    "But that reasoning also seems to lead to troubling conclusions..."

    What I find troubling is that because Lucas has a copyright on specific instances of imaginary swords based on light, that he thinks he owns the entire idea of swords based on light.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:44am

    Anyone who gets rich goes insane with power.

    The trend to fantasy "creators" ruling the real world must be *stopped*.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:45am

    Lucas' issue is going to be that there is not one "lightsaber." Every one looks different and there are dozens of them (to hunderds between the novels, movies, games, comics, cartoons, etc.), so how do you come up with a test for what looks too much like a lightsaber. It's clearly not a direct copy although it is fundamentally similar is overall shape.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:48am

    A light-saber is a fictional weapon. A laser is a real object. There is no point where the two intersect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Scote, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:48am

    Yeah, it looks like a lightsaber

    Let's face it. It looks a fair bit like a lightsaber. And it is a genuinely powerful laser. So the comparison is obvious. But it doesn't copy any specific Lucas arts design and the original lightsabers were made out of old press camera flash handles. Did Lucas ever pay Graphlex for infringing on their design?

    http://www.fx-sabers.com/forum/index.php?topic=5996.0

    So I'd say the Pro Arctic Laser looks like a Graphlex flash handle. "Lightsabers" are derivative works not original creations. And I, for one, do not confuse the the Pro Arctic Laser with the Lucas Arts trademark.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:48am

    Re:

    Well yes, things that are hand held share common conformations being that people have similar hands. A regular laser pointer or even a pencil can be said to share a similar conformations. So does a sword. So what? So now we can't use the conformation of the hand with certain types of weapons?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:49am

    Re:

    He will claim it looks like one of the hundreds of previously un-pictured light-sabers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:51am

    Re: Hmm...

    I think that "consumer confusion" would only apply in the case of a trademark, whereas the C&D letter invokes copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:51am

    I'm not one for the intricacies of copy right law, but just a cursory analysis of the two images makes them look pretty similar. I don't know why Wicked Lasers designed the way it did, but the design certainly seems like it takes elements from the typical lightsabre design.

    Whether that means anything, I have no clue, but I at least would acknowledge that the two look similar (and I imagine, unnecessarily so). As another commenter already noted, its clearly created some confusion online with a large number of people immediately comparing the two, despite the rather different uses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 11:57am

    Re:

    "created some confusion online with a large number of people immediately comparing the two"

    It has not created any confusion. There is not a single person on this planet who was actually confused into thinking that this laser is in fact an actual Star Wars lightsaber. The "large number of people" were actually only a few bloggers making an analogy between them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    tony, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:03pm

    What about Star Trek?

    Does this mean that Paramount can go after flip-phone makers for looking like a TOS communicator? Or maybe go after Apple for iphones and ipads looking and functioning like the PADD?

    WSFS should revoke his Hugo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:04pm

    A legal battle over this would be disastrous for whoever even raised the claims...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re: Hmm...

    Well, according to the CNN article, the C&D was sent to protect their trademark....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:08pm

    Re: Re:

    It has not created any confusion.

    This is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue, so I don't think that consumer confusion is relevant. I think the only thing that Lucas would have to prove is whether the laser infringes on his copyright. This angle isn't without its own issues, but as far as I understand, consumer confusion isn't a criteria for copyright infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Hmm...

    I based my comment on this statement from the article...

    "It is apparent from the design of the Pro Arctic Laser that it was intended to resemble the hilts of our lightsaber swords, which are protected by copyright ... ," said the letter, dated last month and provided to CNN by Wicked Lasers.


    The reference to trademark is actually by the CEO of Wicked Lasers, not by Lucas...

    "They're a big company that needs to protect their trademarks. Maybe they're having to look like they're protecting their trademark in case they need to [protect it again] later."


    Let's hope that the lawyer that he hires doesn't also confuse trademark with copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    M Type, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:15pm

    Re:

    Did the Roddenberry estate get comped for cellphone design based on Star Trek's communicator gadgets?

    And yeah, as someone said above, did flashlight designers get comped by Lucas?

    Can you even get comped for something that doesn't actually exist? I could understand if it was a real working, um, sword of light thing...not for use by kids...of course...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    redwall_hp (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:19pm

    Is Graflex still around? Maybe they should sue Lucas. I think Mr. Lucas's lightsabers look a bit similar to certain flash guns: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&q=graflex+flash+lightsaber The real Star Wars geeks among you should be able to figure out why... :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    PopeHilarius (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:25pm

    I like the idea of holding companies liable for the comments of bloggers. Mike compares the major record labels and movie studios to buggy whip manufacturers all the time. Maybe Jedediah's Buggy Whip (http://www.jedediahsbuggywhip.com/) should sue EMI for creating brand confusion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "This is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue"

    I never said it was either. I was just responding to something an ignorant Anonymous Coward wrote.

    And BTW, the CNN article linked above does mention trademark, although almost certainly erroneously. Laypeople can never get copyrights, trademarks, and patents right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:31pm

    Re:

    As another commenter already noted, its clearly created some confusion online with a large number of people immediately comparing the two, despite the rather different uses.

    Comparing the two does not mean there is confusion. No one picks up one of these lasers and thinks it's a lightsaber or associated at all with George Lucas.

    We recently talked about the FAA approving flying cars and lots of news articles compared it to the flying cars in the Jetsons. Does that mean there's confusion? I don't think so...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Hmm...

    One question: does the fact that blogs and members of the public so quickly associated the two give credence to consumer confusion?

    Only if consumers think they're actually buying an official lightsaber.

    Comparing the two is not a sign of confusion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Dr. Poop, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    Lucas is Jabba

    Lucas is a dbag.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    Re:

    It is kinda obvious that the hand-me-down lightsaber Luke first got was just one of those with a few added bits. I always thought it was kind of an odd shape considering how all the others are.

    As for the pro arctic, I always thought it was based off of the lightsaber, but I never actually thought it was official. I guess it being based on Graflex makes more sense (looks more like it).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    Grips

    You know, now that I look at the original lightsaber handle designs, they bear a striking resemblance to grips on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.
    Yeah, I know, Lucas never marketed them as motorcycles but I think the full wrath of HD should be brought to bear...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:38pm

    The letter calls the company's newest laser "a highly dangerous product with the potential to cause blindness, burns and other damage to people and/or property."

    Are they going to try banning lighters next?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Re: What about Star Trek?

    Along those lines, what about any concept a sci-fi writer comes up with that someday becomes technically possible? Say we get matter to energy transmission worked out, or warp drives become feasible, does that mean Roddenberry's estate can sue the first company that brings it to market for copyright infringement?

    That's all about promoting science and the usefull arts I guess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re:

    Kids can use them if they have enough mediclorians.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:42pm

    Re:

    The letter calls the company's newest laser "a highly dangerous product with the potential to cause blindness, burns and other damage to people and/or property."

    It's a 5W laser. It can permanently blind someone at a mile if it hits their eyes for more than a quarter of a second. I'm pretty sure looking at the dot it makes on a matte wall at a few feet will blind you. It burns skin instantly.

    It *is* dangerous. I can't wait for the reports of tons of kids with $200 going blind, or blinding drivers on the highway.

    PS- I really want one, but would probably blind myself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And BTW, the CNN article linked above does mention trademark, although almost certainly erroneously.

    This is probably what you meant, but to clarify, the article does mention trademark, but in a quote from the Wicked Lasers CEO. So, CNN accurately quoted someone who erroneously referenced trademark.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Hulser (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re:

    Comparing the two does not mean there is confusion. No one picks up one of these lasers and thinks it's a lightsaber or associated at all with George Lucas.

    But the C&D letter invokes copyright, not trademark, so it's not about the subjective idea of whether the average consumer would be confused or think that the laser was being the sold by Lucas, but whether there are enough objective similarities between the laser and a lightsaber. Right?

    We recently talked about the FAA approving flying cars and lots of news articles compared it to the flying cars in the Jetsons. Does that mean there's confusion? I don't think so...

    Right, but what if the flying car also looked very similar to the Jetsons flying car? I think that would be a better analogy. Lucas isn't suing all makers of lasers, just the one that made a laser that most people would agree looks like a lightsaber.

    (BTW, I'm not saying that Lucas should win. As another person mentioned, I think that Wicked Lasers can make a case that the form of the laser has more to do with the human hand than with an effort to infringe on Lucas' copyright. Wasn't there some story about chocolate bunnies that referenced this principle?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Lapsed Romulan, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Where are my dilithium crystal-powered flying cars?!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 1:24pm

    Same story, different actors

    ThinkGeek and the National Pork Board, where "The Other White Meat" was only used in links *to* ThinkGeek's "Unicorn Meat", not on their actual (fictional) product page itself.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0934489897.shtml

    The only difference there is, the sue-er has the real product, and the sue-ee has the fake one...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 1:34pm

    Re: Yeah, it looks like a lightsaber

    Agreed and well put. It surely does look like a lightsaber, and just as surely what the manufacturer intended.

    That being said, unless Lucas is in the actual-really-real lasers business, his copyright/trademarks have not been harmed or even infringed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    britmic, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 1:57pm

    graflex

    I find it highly amusing that the original lightsaber props were nothing more than '40s camera flash handles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 2:08pm

    Screw Lucas Film, as if Goddddd wasn't rich enough. I will take the new Laser and tell Lucas to fire up his toy light saber and see who wins the day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 2:19pm

    Re:

    No, it's not. Unless this thing has a range of about a meter.

    Gods forbid that someone makes a *real* lightsaber and gets sued by this clown.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 2:31pm

    Re:

    That's it! The CEO of Wicked Lasers and Lucas need to duel. Lucas with his lightsaber of choice and WL's CEO with the Pro Arctic Laser. Winner takes ownership of the other's company stock options.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 2:40pm

    Idea vs Implementation

    here is a prime example when you give some one control over an idea (plasma sword). The Wicked Laser actually cuts, the plasma sword is a white stick on a piece of camera equipment and then drawn over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Jon Snow (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 3:58pm

    Emperor Lucas

    I saw an interview with Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia) a few years ago... She said that Lucas controls everything so tightly that she has to send him $5 every time she looks in the mirror.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 4:53pm

    If this ever gets dragged to court I can see how Lucas is going to make his arguments.

    "You don't need to think I'm being vexatiously litigous..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    E, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 5:52pm

    I just think the whole thing is hysterical. Cue, copy sue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 6:45pm

    So if I patent a lightsaber, can George Lucas make another movie without my permission?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    lonewriter (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 6:46pm

    Lucas is greedy

    I love his movies but come on, it's a real woreking laser, not a movie prop. I think the courts should throw out the suit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 8:02pm

    Re: Re:

    Hmmm...did you know that fiber optics networks can blind you too?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 8:20pm

    Re:

    They's meh-di-chlu-rean shooters, don'cha know?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 10:50pm

    "These are not the light sabers you were looking for. He can go about his business..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Any Mouse, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 2:34am

    Re: Re:

    Actually, it's a

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 4:16am

    Re: Re:

    Wait...that wasn't the Jetson's car? Figures...I have to go cancel my order now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 4:38am

    Lucas Does Have A Valid Point, Even If It Is Not Intellectual Property

    I think there's something to be said for George Lucas's position. I would agree with The Infamous Joe (#31) about these being actually dangerous objects, though I find the laser to listed as 1 watt instead of 5 watts (not a very great difference, comparable, say, to the difference between 22-cal-long-rifle and 9-mm-parabellum rounds).

    The kind of laser one uses in a laboratory comes in a more or less rectangular metal box, for the obvious good reason that you can set it on the bench, and it will stay there, instead of rolling away. Likewise, such a laser is likely to have threaded screwholes, mounting flanges, etc., so that one can conveniently build it into an apparatus by more precise methods than simply taping it down. This Pro Arctic Laser would appear to be manifestly packaged as a toy, with lots of nonfunctional decor. It doesn't have any sighting mechanism. It is obviously intended to be waved around wildly. This laser would appear to be rated at a watt, in the same range as the most advanced disk burners, but it is not encased in a protective housing. It would appear to fall into safety class IV, the most dangerous class, and in fact, the manufacturer admits as much. By comparison, a laser pointer is only rated at a milliwatt or less.

    The laser is advertised in the following terms, on the manufacturer's website, "this laser possesses the most burning capabilities of any portable laser in existence. That's why it's also the most dangerous laser ever created... *Supplies are extremely limited as voluntary and regulatory restrictions increase the difficulty to purchase Class IV portable lasers." In other words, the makers of the underlying laser device try to restrict sales to legitimate users, such as the makers of disk drives and optical cable modems. The web page has the split personality of a cigarette advertisement, one part, "real cooool," and the other part, "... the Surgeon General warns..."

    Toy guns are made in bright plastic colors so that they won't be mistaken for the real thing, and children carrying them will not get shot by mistake, in what one might call "mistaken self-defense." If Glock began manufacturing automatic pistols designed to look like toys, I am sure that Mattel and Hasbro would get very upset. George Lucas's complaint does not exactly resolve to copyright or trademark, but that does not mean it is not legitimate. Presumably Lucas's proper recourse would be to lobby for suitable consumer product safety standards for Class IV lasers, ie. a rectangular package capable of being bolted down, etc. If toy Lightsabers cannot instantly be distinguished from dangerous weapons, then Lightsabers will have to be banned.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
    http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arc tic_Series-96-37.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:24am

    Re: Lucas Does Have A Valid Point, Even If It Is Not Intellectual Property

    I find the laser to listed as 1 watt instead of 5 watts (not a very great difference

    The latter is five times as powerful! To put it in gun terms, an equivlant change would be a 5 gram slug compared to a 25 gram slug at the same muzzle velocity. If I had to get hit by one, I know which I'd pick. But that's all relatively off topic anyway.

    Presumably Lucas's proper recourse would be to lobby for suitable consumer product safety standards for Class IV lasers, ie. a rectangular package capable of being bolted down, etc.

    What if there is a legitimate use for a portable handheld class IV laser?

    If toy Lightsabers cannot instantly be distinguished from dangerous weapons, then Lightsabers will have to be banned.

    Are realistic toy guns illegal? I could not find any evidence that they are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Lucas Does Have A Valid Point, Even If It Is Not Intellectual Property

    Regulation of Realistic Toy Guns:

    Here are some sources. I gather the Consumer Product Safety Commisions got a number of major manufacturers and retailers to drop realistic toy guns back in 1994, mostly by "jawboning." Firms like Toys'R Us don't really want to push back against this kind of regulation. It's not really very difficult to comply with, given time, and people buying toys for children are likely to see the logic.

    http://airsoftgun.blogspot.com/2007/06/increasingly-realistic-toy-airsoft-guns.html

    a proposed federal law died in committee in 2007:

    http://www.therpf.com/f9/us-ban-replica-toy-firearms-28031/

    But in New York, they have gone further:

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/838toyguns.pdf

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 6:52am

    George Lucas is just an old fart. He has no idea what hes talking about. What a shmuck!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Bob, Jul 10th, 2010 @ 6:48pm

    This is pretty open and shut. George Lucas never created a lightsaber. You could say that he created the idea for a lightsaber, but if he had a patent then it would have ran out over a decade ago, so anybody can make toys like this if they wanted to. He might own the trademark on "lightsaber" but this company isn't even calling it a lightsaber.

    If you make a device that resembles a lightsaber, then people will compare your device to lightsabers, just like people compare Coke and Pepsi, generic tissue with Kleenex, and Wal-Mart brand mouth wash with Listerine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 23rd, 2010 @ 4:25pm

    Re: What about Star Trek?

    With tricorders, at least, Gene Roddenberry specifically allowed in his contract for companies that are able to create functioning technology to use the name to describe it.

    Obviously, this is where he and Lucas differ.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2010 @ 2:36am

    Re:

    But if they did, what a wonderful sound they'd make!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2010 @ 1:42pm

    Everyone keeps tossing the topic around of does it or does it not look like a light saber, and basing judgment on that concept alone.

    The real core of this argument shouldn't be about how quantitatively it looks like a light saber, but on how much right Lucas' copyright has.

    My opinion is that, no, Lucas doesn't have a case here. You can't copyright an entire design concept or style. It would be like implying that one person holds a copyright on all that encompasses the Steampunk style.

    The laser is obviously designed to follow a Science Fiction stylization, but Lucas doesn't have a copyright that he can enforce on any science fiction looking hand held device.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This