This probably belongs in MPSIMS since it is certainly mundane and pointless.
This LA Times story needs no additions from me.
The judge dismissed Fox News’ 8 inch thick submission with a figurative wave of the hand:
Amen.
The same can be said of the Ten Commandments case.
I expect that they only made this case because one of their lawyers convinced them they need to defend their trademark or lose it.
Perhaps this lawyer also happened to be a fan or friend of Franken, and knew it would boost his sales.
How much more frivolous would the case have had to be for the Fox lawyers to get into disciplinary trouble for it?
I’m not a lawyer but “frivolity” is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t think you can really show that a lawsuit is frivolous without a hearing of some sort to examine the facts. In short, a trial or a presentation of some kind before an impartial referee.
Just a link? What’s the argument? What’s the debate?
David:
Perhaps you had best see a Doctor. This post may be nothing. On the other hand it could be a sign of the onset of Type A Reederitis which has been going around lately.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=205428
Not even when the judge says “The case is wholly without merit both factually and legally.”? Perhaps those wheels grind slowly, too.
In the end, Al Franken got the last laugh, as well he should. 
I’m afraid to answer for fear Scylla will object.
Seriously. The forum where the judge said this was without merit was the hearing. I think it is risky for attorneys to start prejudging cases. They are supposed to be advocates who present their client’s side in the strongest manner they can find. Fox has a copyright on the phrase “Fair and Balanced.” The diocy was in the approval of the copyright in the first place.
For the record, Fox did not have a copyright on “fair & balanced”. Fox registered the phrase as a trademark. There is a difference. The rest of your argument stands.
I stand corrected.
By all means. Please. Make an argument.
I’m still looking for a proposition for debate so I can decide which side I’m on and take a stance.
Oh, and I’m not making fun of you. To prove it I’ll cue you in on my latest humiliation:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=206561
I’m just suggesting that a simple link and no debating stance is slim pickens for GD.
Reederitis. That cracked me up. I’m afraid, though, that this thread does show all the early symptoms.
But the cure is pretty simple: Engage brain before engaging fingers.
I agree. I think some overly-nervous folks in the Fox legal department or at Hogan & Hartson (the firm filing the case on Fox’s behalf) probably thought this was a loser of a case, but should be filed nevertheless as a matter of ordinary trademark policing, lest some later joker come along and suggest Fox hadn’t been vigilant in protecting its trademark.
Has anybody checked to see if Fox has filed any other lawsuits regarding infringing use of their “fair and balanced” trademark?
If they have, then the trademark policing explanation makes sense, but if this is the first one, I’m not sure I’d buy that.
There were reports earlier this week that this thing was filed at the urging of Bill O’Reilly who has a personal grudge against Franken. The gratuitous insults in the brief sound very much like O’Reilly’s style and he seems to be tremendously thin-skinned and hypocritical when it comes to personal criticism. He’s the classic example of someone who can dish it out but can’t take it.
That depends on whether the phrase “fair and balanced” has been used by a non-Fox entity in such a public manner as Franken’s book. If it hasn’t been so used, or if its use has been so obscure that it would be unreasonable to expect diligent policing to uncover it, then the policing explanation still makes sense.
And do note that Fox has a reputation for vigorous policing of its intellectual property rights – these guys regularly shut down stuff like Simpsons fan sites and Alien-themed Quake Total Conversions. This sort of thing is not out of character for Fox.
DtC: the brief was written by Hogan & Hartson, not Bill O’Reilly or even the Fox in-house legal department. To put it mildly, I find it highly unlikely that O’Reilly had much of anything to do with the filing of the brief or the contents thereof. The decision to file would be made by Fox’s in-house trademark lawyers in conjunction with their outside legal counsel (H&H). You shouldn’t accept Matt Drudge’s dispatches so readily.
There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Fox, and Franken both got to hype up their particular wagon load of goods, and all it cost was the time of their respective lawyers. I am sure both sides are disappointed that there wasn’t a trial.
Suing and being sued is a great way to boost book sales and audience share. It doesn’t matter if you win or loose.
Tris
Would this count ?
As I understand matters, a newly granted trademark is readily challengeable during the first few years of its existence, and then becomes eligible for a more protected legal status. “Fair & Balanced” has not yet reached that blessed state.
Doesn’t Fox’s loss here make it less likely that their trademark will stand the test of time ?