Comments on: Yari Loses http://madisonian.net/2008/03/27/yari-loses/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Greg Lastowka http://madisonian.net/2008/03/27/yari-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-244663 Greg Lastowka Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:01:43 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2008/03/27/yari-loses/#comment-244663 Thanks for alerting me to this, Mike. I've got a soft spot for authorial reputation and credit questions, but like Michael, I'm actually more interested in reading this to see what it says about private rules, investments, and competition structures. Those questions are becoming interesting in some of online gaming and virtual property cases. Thanks for alerting me to this, Mike.

I’ve got a soft spot for authorial reputation and credit questions, but like Michael, I’m actually more interested in reading this to see what it says about private rules, investments, and competition structures. Those questions are becoming interesting in some of online gaming and virtual property cases.

]]> By: Michael Risch http://madisonian.net/2008/03/27/yari-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-244640 Michael Risch Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:20:39 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2008/03/27/yari-loses/#comment-244640 Artfully dodging the broader question about authorship, I think Yari made the wrong arguments on promissory estoppel, which were his best bet. If true, he should have alleged: 1. Had he known at the outset that only 3 producers could win an Oscar, he would never have put his time or money into a risky 6 producer project in which he could not obtain the added upside of an award. 2. Had he known that the rules would change after submission, his production company wouldn't have spent the money it did promoting the movie for the award. I thing both of those, if true, could support a claim a justifiable reliance and real detriment. Artfully dodging the broader question about authorship, I think Yari made the wrong arguments on promissory estoppel, which were his best bet. If true, he should have alleged:

1. Had he known at the outset that only 3 producers could win an Oscar, he would never have put his time or money into a risky 6 producer project in which he could not obtain the added upside of an award.

2. Had he known that the rules would change after submission, his production company wouldn’t have spent the money it did promoting the movie for the award.

I thing both of those, if true, could support a claim a justifiable reliance and real detriment.

]]>