Talk:Eridani Light Horse lawsuit

Copypasta'ed

I created this article by copying over content from the Eridani Light Horse article that was added by an unregistered IP (68.110.113.204). It was removed again by another (reverted to the article's previous text) and I expressly agree with that move, with admin hat on. However, I've also been meaning to write an article about the ELH lawsuit for some time and although it needs a lot of work I chose to use this text as a basis. Other users are welcome to edit and improve this page; it is explicitly not a "work in progress" by myself. But please take care to keep a neutral stance and a factual and encyclopedic writing style, as this is a sensitive topic. Frabby (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2014 (PDT)

I agree that this version be used as a structure/placeholder only. There is a lot of uncited and inflammatory language here ("confession", for one) and -while written in the style of a historical document- is clearly not presented as unbaised or as a scholarly work.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:22, 18 May 2014 (PDT)

Wow... a link to this page was posted over to a thread at LOTB. Prior to that I don't think I knew it existed. I think everything except "The Judgement" can be deleted and even that needs clean-up. Probably add a short paragraph for an unbiased overview.--Cache (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2016 (PDT)

If you're looking for some factual material on the case, there's a court ruling:

http://www.alex.kaempen.org/Malcomson_v._Topps.html

Follow-up denial of appeal:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2011/11/28/10-15540.pdf

Denial of Supreme Court hearing:

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/275w6r2yc/supreme-court-of-the-united-states/scott-malcomson-petitioner-v-topps-inc/ — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by Cray (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 August 2016‎ .

So my next questions: Is it considered plagiarism if I copy parts of the court rulings verbatim? While I trust the court documents on alex.kaempen.org are the real thing, is that website considered a legitimate source that can be cited?--Cache (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2016 (PDT)

Use the passages as cited quotes, that is never plagiarism. Dark Jaguar (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2016 (PDT)

Malcomson here. Corrected a variety of factual errors in the article, including such things as a claim that the lawsuit had been dismissed. In fact, Topps HAD attempted a dismissal but Judge Murray Snow rejected that move. The case went to judgment, which is the opposite of dismissal, which is why the appeals court cites that judgment in upholding the lower court. The appeals court also stated clearly that my contributions to Battletech did not rise to the level of co-ownership. This does not erase the contributions which were held to that standard, nor does it detract from the fact that they were published as canon content, which the preceding part of this page acknowledges. I went to court once to defend my copyrights, and if Topps is peddling any of this nonsense I want to know, because it means I'll be taking them to court again in order to enforce the decisions of the Ninth Circuit.

Cease engaging in demonstrably defamatory edits. If you wish to argue this point further, contact Topps legal counsel (or that of any Battletech licensee), and have them contact me about it. This is above your pay grade.

What does this mean?

"Malcomson was attached the character of Roy Calbeck"

What does attached mean here? Madness Divine (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2022 (EDT)

Upon re-reading, yeah, it sounds weird. Have reworded the part. Frabby (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2022 (EDT)

Thanks. Makes a lot more sense now. Madness Divine (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2022 (EDT)