Spike TV (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

a $500,000 bond that Viacom gets if he loses at trial

That's not how an injunction bond works. Merely winning the lawsuit doesn't entitle Viacom to any collection on the bond. It would have to show that it was damaged by an improperly issued injunction. Such a showing might well be possible, but there's no way to know at this early stage.

M.

 

[Peter Kline]

Litigation is the name of the game today... even when it is silly and motivated by $$$. Those that want to stick up for these kind of suits are entitled, but yes there are other more important things for the courts to spend their money on. Sorry Michael, this is nuts.

 

[Michael Reuben]

are other more important things for the courts to spend their money on

OK, one last time:

To date the courts have not spent a dime on this lawsuit. In fact, they have collected money on it. I know this, because I've litigated preliminary injunction cases in the same court where this suit is pending, and I know the process. And your knowledge comes from . . . ?

M.

 

[Peter Kline]

Mr. Reuben. OK, you're an attorney. You know better then anyone else here. You made your point. In the end this is a trivial suit brought by trivial minds who think they are important.

Also, you don't need to put your comments in bold. You have the last word. Happy?

 

[Jeff Gordon]

What about the poor Jurors that have to sit there and hear this crap? Is their time not being wasted?

 

[Michael Reuben]

What about the poor Jurors that have to sit there and hear this crap? Is their time not being wasted?

1. No juror has been seated for a case that was just filed. It's at least a year away from a trial, and probably several years. Purely as a statistical matter, the likelihood that any particular case will ever be tried is very small.

2. Many cases are not tried to a jury. It is impossible to know, at this stage, whether or not this case would be heard by a jury, if it ever went to trial.

3. In New York State, everyone has to spend a certain amount of time every four years doing jury service. If you consider that service a "waste of time" (and many don't), your time is going to get wasted no matter what case you hear. The only way a particular case becomes a special burden to jurors would be if it dragged on for months. Such cases routinely occur, but I've seen nothing to indicate that this would be one of them. Again, though, it's way too early in the game to know how it will play out.

And BTW, most prospective jurors I've dealt with would be thrilled to get seated for a case that involves a celebrity. The worst thing about jury service is the boredom, because most cases are quite dull. But when it's a celeb, there isn't an empty seat in the courtroom.

M.

 

[Jeff Gordon]

And BTW, most prospective jurors I've dealt with would be thrilled to get seated for a case that involves a celebrity. The worst thing about jury service is the boredom, because most cases are quite dull. But when it's a celeb, there isn't an empty seat in the courtroom.

Well, not this one, and I venture to say that anyone who would be "thrilled" to waste their time on a ridiculous case like this simply because a "celebrity" is involved is someone that probably shouldn't be on a jury. They would obviously be too star struck to be objective as well as most likely have questionable intelligence. I don't think anyone is "thrilled" to take time from work to not get paid and listen to a coddled "celebrity" pitch his woes.

Just because you are an Attorney you don't have to defend every misuse of the court's time. I realize that this is how you make a living, but despite the fact that Judges and staff are required to be in court every day doesn't mean that this isn't a WASTE of time.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Michael, on the bond, that's what I thought. I guess one of the stories I read explained it wrong and I figured the journalist knows more than me.

Any chance this suit will be pushed through as the injunction is affecting Viacom's business? I would think Cochran would try to draw it out so as to get Viacom to settle out of court. That way, his case doesn't need much merit.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Just because you are an Attorney you don't have to defend every misuse of the court's time.

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth? Nowhere have I "defended" Spike Lee's law suit. I don't know enough to condemn it or defend it, and neither does anyone else here. The only thing we know at this point is that a judge who actually heard some evidence thought the case had merit. Of course, to people who already "know" that the case must be garbage, that just proves the judge must be "dumb". :rolleyes

M.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I would think Cochran would try to draw it out so as to get Viacom to settle out of court. That way, his case doesn't need much merit.

Cases like this typically settle if the preliminary injunction is upheld. But that's a big "if". And without the injunction, it doesn't matter how long the plaintiff draws out the case. It's not like Viacom can't afford the cost of defense.

M.

 

[WillG]

I'm not a laywer, but Spike Lee, What a DICK!!!!!
But then again, maybe this is a good thing. I'm going to go find every company with William in the name and sue them for using my name. And I guess everyone else can do the same. Hey Michael Ruben, go sue Michael J. Fox, Michael Douglas, Michael Keaton, and Michael Mann. etc for making money using YOUR name (not an attack, just an example). So now Spike Lee is the only one who can use the name Spike (c)? He invented it. Better not name your dog Spike (c) because he can sue. Better change the name of that move in volleyball, and recall every video copy of "Meet the Parents" because the word "Spike 9 (c)" is used a few times among many other movies. Oh yeah and revise any movie and tv show that has dialogue about punch at a dance being Spiked (c). I hope this will not affect the new programming of TNN. Ridculous

 

[jim barnes]

OK maybe the courts haven't spent any money on this case yet but these types of silly lawsuits have cost businesses millions of dollars. That costs all of us. I was glad to see that they had to put up the $500K - I'm sure that made them think twice before proceeding.

BTW, now that I've read all this (I hadn't heard about this until reading it here) I will always think of Spike Lee and Johnnie Cochran whenever I see that channel in my channel guide.

 

[Joseph Young]

Hearing Spike TV never caused me to think of Spike Lee.




Michael Reuben, a lot of good points. I still can't help bemoaning frivolous litigation, however little money and resources are actually lost or gained in the process.

Joseph

 

[Jeff Gordon]

Michael Reuben, a lot of good points. I still can't help bemoaning frivolous litigation, however little money and resources are actually lost or gained in the process.

That view IS simplistic however; The more time spent on garbage like this, the less resources that are available to legitimate court business. And I must agree with the previous poster, when businesses spend money on defending themselves from junk we all pay in the end.

 

[GlennH]

It's not like Viacom can't afford the cost of defense.

Sure, they've got deep pockets, right? But who ultimately pays for a major corporation's team of lawyers and pays the settlements of stupid lawsuits? The consumers.

By itself, this case makes no difference. But it's a typical example of the entire dysfunctional system.

Of course, I guess the fact that I don't earn my living from this system makes me unqualified to comment on it.

 

[Will_B]

It is good that the judge noted that there are one-name cebrities, and therefore the case needs to be heard.

But Spike Lee is certainly not known by his first name, and that will be discovered pretty quickly by the judge.

Both sides of this publicity-driven lawsuit can produce every tv interview Spike Lee has ever been introduced on, every magazine article he's ever been featured in, and I expect they won't be able to produce more than one or two times when he's been introduced by only his first name. ...Indeed, the only time David Letterman has introduced a "Spike" has been during the Stupid Pet Tricks.

My initials are WB ...I should really go after Warner Brothers for naming their tv network after me.

 

[TonyD]

maybe elvis should sue too....

 

[Scott Ware]

I honostly can't see why the judge feels this way. The examples he listed (Madonna, Cher, Sting) don't have last names. I've never heard Spike Lee called simply Spike. It's "a Spike Lee joint" not "a Spike joint". And what about other people with the name Spike? IMDB turns up 38 responses for the name Spike. What about Spike Jonze? Spike, while not a common name, is hardly limited to one person, like Cher, Sting, and Madonna are.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Of course, I guess the fact that I don't earn my living from this system makes me unqualified to comment on it.

The fact that I work in the system puts me in the position of being knowledgeable about how it operates. I don't know whether you're qualified or not, but cheap shots like this don't add to your credibility.

M.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Interesting thread, but let's keep our responses in perspective.





Crawdaddy