Slashdot Mirror


George Lucas C&Ds 'Lightsaber Laser'

dward90 writes "George Lucas thinks that bulky, handheld lasers shouldn't be produced because they are his intellectual property. From CNN: 'George Lucas wants to force a laser company to stop making a new, high-powered product he says looks too much like the famous lightsaber from his classic sci-fi series. Lucasfilm Ltd. has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Hong Kong-based Wicked Lasers, threatening legal action if it doesn't change its Pro Arctic Laser series or stop selling it altogether.'"

481 comments

  1. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dildos look too much like MY penis. Can I sue their makers?

    1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is funny and to the point - why is this a troll?

    2. Re:And... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because he said ... *gasp!* penis! Such base, immoral language should not be allowed in a public forum! Soon people might throw around other medical terms like 'testicles' and 'mammaries' or even ... dare I say it ... 'vagina'! It's a slippery slope that leads to people eating babies.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    3. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a slippery slope that leads to people eating babies.

      Ahh, another satisfied Blue Cross/Blue Shield customer.

    4. Re:And... by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      depends, is your penis trademarked?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    5. Re:And... by mujadaddy · · Score: 5, Funny

      'vagina'! It's a slippery slope that leads to people eating babies.

      I think you're doing it wrong.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    6. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom's vagina has a slippery slope.

    7. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's it.. they should re-make the laser into a big dildo shape. That'll shut Lucas up.

    8. Re:And... by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      OMG! now they're raping your manhood too!

    9. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh if only the score would go higher than 5! almost made me spit out my coffee

    10. Re:And... by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

      I almost spit out my coffee when I saw those words in that proximity.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    11. Re:And... by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is funny and to the point - why is this a troll?

      We train young men to drop fire on people from the sky but forbid them to write the word "fuck" on their airplanes because it is obscene...

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    12. Re:And... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Lucas' lightsabers look too much like mine. Should I sue Lucas? For that matter flashlights, candlesticks, Saturn V rockets (that's a big one!), bratwurst, and for that matter, Lucas himself, the prick.

      Goddamn it I hate when dickheads like him pull that shit. Somebody bitchslap him for me, ok?

    13. Re:And... by nanotik · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt you designed your own penis. Maybe your parents could try? ;)

    14. Re:And... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      ... and result in internal burn injuries?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    15. Re:And... by mavasplode · · Score: 0

      Sounds like bad timing.

      --
      ACTUAL SIZE!!!
    16. Re:And... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You can't possibly know unless you try it!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. age by Threni · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Surely those things are like 50 years old now. Feels like it. Don't tell me - the problem is that Lucas is still alive.

    1. Re:age by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Surely those things are like 50 years old now. Feels like it. Don't tell me - the problem is that Lucas is still alive.

      They'll never be able to make hand held lasers. they've encased him in carbonite.

    2. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't tell me - you have a cushy job working 9-5 coding away your time, while the upper management and lawyers make sure your work (their IP), remains protected while their sales team can make a sale, and in turn money for the whole company, and in turn you get paid 10% of the gross at the end of the month.

      But more realistically, your pension and other benefits will be what's at stake here, accumulating worth from those pesky royalties. But if your work isn't worth anything 50 years later, your retirement pension is just a money drain to everyone in the company.

    3. Re:age by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the problem is that Lucas is still alive.

      He was much better when he just wanted to share some amazing stories floating in his head, like the original SW trilogy and IJ. Ever since it's been downhill, with a slightly worse prequel trilogy, then selling it all out to have an animated TV series, a handful of recent video game flops, and everything else that seems to be detrimental to the Star Wars fantasy universe.

      And don't forget the holiday special. shivers

      Yeah, George has long since seemed to be more in it for the money, like he is trying to build this vast empire to rival Microsoft. You might even say his entertainment companies, Lucasfilm, Industrial light and magic, skywalker sound, and then hsi co-founding with THX makes it seem like he's monopolized that field. (What's the last action flick you saw that didn't have the little THX promo before the show).

      Seriously Lucas, you've built your empire, and it's doing absolutely great without you trying to "defend" it. Just quietly retire and let the other men try and run the company. I've noticed Lucasarts is revamping the Monkey Island series, and I have a feeling this was not your idea. It's not as huge a success as you probably wish, but its not doing too bad. Remember, the reason these people were even inspired to make lightsabers because of your films, no one is going to forget that.

    4. Re:age by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, George has long since seemed to be more in it for the money, like he is trying to build this vast empire to rival Microsoft.

      That's what happens when you surrender to the Dark Side of The Farce...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    5. Re:age by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>And don't forget the holiday special. shivers

      The holiday special actually came while Lucas was still young and brilliant. Here's how I'd probably respond if I were this company. It's ridiculous that Lucas thinks he can copyright a device that looks like thousands of others flashlights, sword handles, and so on.

      Dear Lucas-san:

      Flak you.

      Sincelely,
      Hong Kong

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:age by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He was much better when he just wanted to share some amazing stories floating in his head...

      Just based on things I've seen and read here and there, he was "much better" back then because he was confined by limited resources, and by people around him that would actually say, "No, George, just....no."

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    7. Re:age by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the problem is that Lucas is still alive.

      He was much better when he just wanted to share some amazing stories floating in his head, like the original SW trilogy and IJ. Ever since it's been downhill...

      I read, in the Secret History of Star Wars, that Lucas genuinely wanted to impress his dad. He wanted to do something great that wasn't just running a stationary store or what-have-you. Since his father passed away in 1991, and also since he divorced one of his strongest contributers in 1983, I'd say he is just lost. He seems to lack any particular direction and is just doing what he can, rather than to impress any particular person.

      That's my take on it, anyway.

      Poor guy.

    8. Re:age by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Statistically speaking, no. Most software isn't sold on retail shelfs. Most software isn't even sold outside the company. For all practical purposes, it's protected by contract law, not copyright or any other IP law. If copyright was stricken tomorrow, the vast majority of programmers would be unaffected, no matter what Microsoft and Adobe say.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    9. Re:age by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah I agree. Many of Harrison Ford's Han Solo lines were more "Han Solo"ish than the original lines by George Lucas.

      Sometimes a little humility goes a long way. Sometimes the other person is actually right.

      But no, when I watched Phantom Menace it seemed like the actors had just read their lines for the second or third time, and George says "OK that's enough, let's go make more dresses for Amidala", and the actors and everyone else just went "Yes Sir!", rather than: "Uh George, we have to do that again, that sucked".

      Seeing it was just like seeing someone do the first or second round of his presentation ( some nice graphics, but blah). It usually takes a fair number of goes till the presenter says "forget the slide, let me tell you a story"...

      --
    10. Re:age by tibit · · Score: 1

      Something has to make money for George Lucas Educational Foundation, right? /ducks and runs

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    11. Re:age by mr.dreadful · · Score: 1

      Lucas sold THX years ago.

      Complaining that he's running Star Wars as a business is just lame, because thats what Star Wars is... a business. Lucas employs hundreds of people (not all of them in the film business) that work on a range of projects, some of which are Star Wars. They make contributions that go way beyond Star Wars. And chances are you'll never hear about most of them, because strangely enough, Lucas isn't concerned about keeping you in the loop.

      Years ago someone asked Charles Schultz if he minded the fact that Snoopy was being used in commercials and he was shocked. Basically, he felt that of course Snoopy was in commercials. Schutlz was running a business, not an art gallery.

    12. Re:age by belroth · · Score: 1
      I refer my learned friend to the answer given in Arkell v. Pressdram.
      There are many hits on google but this is a nice uncluttered version.

      (For those who are unaware Pressdram is the publisher/company name of Private Eye, a long running UK satirical magazine which is often sued and Arkell V Pressdram is frequently referred to in its pages)

      I keep thinking of SCO v Novell for some reason, can't think why...

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    13. Re:age by geekoid · · Score: 1

      George wasn't really that involved with the holiday special.
      I suspect that's the reason he became so obsessive abut controlling everything.

      There is nothing that horrid about the prequels.

      I suspect the vast majority of com[plaint come from people just old enough to have missed the original Star Wars release so there trying to prove something by being little bitches.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely those things are like 50 years old now. Feels like it.

      That's a pretty old dildo...oh wait, wrong post.

    15. Re:age by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I hope he still is. He still has to finish the last trilogy..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  3. I had already forgotten about Wicked Lasers by boristdog · · Score: 5, Informative

    But now I remember and want to go to the Wicked Laser web site and buy stuff.

    Thanks for reminding me, George! Say hi to Babs Streisand when you see her!

    1. Re:I had already forgotten about Wicked Lasers by localman57 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're not speaking. She's pissed he walked through her lawn on the way to the beach, and he's still insisting that she write him a check for $450 for that time in the late 70's when she did a concert with her hair in honey-buns.

    2. Re:I had already forgotten about Wicked Lasers by KronosReaver · · Score: 4, Funny

      But now I remember and want to go to the Wicked Laser web site and buy stuff.

      Don't forget to order the optional "Shark Mount"

    3. Re:I had already forgotten about Wicked Lasers by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 0, Troll

      There shopping cart keeps crashing on me. Damit I want one now! Give it to me now!

    4. Re:I had already forgotten about Wicked Lasers by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      It might help if you turn them off before placing them in the cart.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:I had already forgotten about Wicked Lasers by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod that up

    6. Re:I had already forgotten about Wicked Lasers by ICLKennyG · · Score: 1

      Why can't George Lucas die of a high cholesterol induced heart attack so I can stop worrying about Indiana Jones 5 and Star Wars 7 and go back to enjoying the memories of my child hood.

  4. He is not threatening them over the laser design! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The threats are merely directed at the company's claim that said laser can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

  5. heh by Pojut · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone else notice how Lucas tends to just shit all over anything remotely reminiscent of Star Wars? My fiancee is convinced it's because Star Wars prevented him from having any other successful films for the rest of this life, and he resents the series because of that.

    My response is that I don't know how you can resent something that makes you a gajilionaire, but whatever.

    1. Re:heh by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait... do you think that it's possible that he borked the prequels on purpose?

      He would have been a gajilionaire off of Indiana Jones, anyway.

    2. Re:heh by localman57 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My response is that I don't know how you can resent something that makes you a gajilionaire, but whatever.

      Obviously, you've never gotten a huge settlement check for having your man-parts torn off in a freak industrial accident.

    3. Re:heh by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indiana Jones was great (the first 3 anyway). If he'd made anything else decent then it would be recognised as such. Plenty of other writers/directors have made more than just one successful movie/series.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:heh by Pojut · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's kinda conspiracy-theorish, but I actually wouldn't put that out of the realm of possibility. What better middle finger could Lucas come up with than delivering crap that people would still pay en masse to see?

    5. Re:heh by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most of the time anyone's pitching something "light saber" like in their marketing materials, serious fucking laser burns aren't a problem. Blunt force trauma, maybe, but not laser burns.

      I can see why Lucas is trying to get the association away from his name.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:heh by easterberry · · Score: 1

      What about the 3 Indiana Jones movies and Labyrinth?

    7. Re:heh by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Is that why he made all the later SW movies so terrible?

    8. Re:heh by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Star Wars prevented him from having any other successful films for the rest of this life

      Yeah, it's a shame that Raiders of the Lost Ark languished in so much obscurity and financial mediocrity.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you've never survived a nuclear bomb inside a fridge.

    10. Re:heh by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think he was actually going with the McDonald's route, and trying to market Star Wars to Kids. I mean a 9 year old protagonist hero. Then a cheesy no-lust love story?

      Notice there were a few more video games targetted towards kids and more products aimed at kids than before... I think the idea was to get these kids to be SW geeks for life, more money if you get em young.

    11. Re:heh by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Willow?
      American Graffiti?
      THX-1138?

      And oddly enough people really hated Temple of Doom until Last Crusade came out. Then people hated it for not living up to the first two films. Now people hate Indy IV.

      I love Indy, but all 4 are cheesy, unrealistic, and most lack a traditional Hollywood ending where Indy saves the day. Indy gets captured by bad guys who basically get what they want in 1, 3 and 4.

      That being said, Lucas is good with concepts, pretty good with directing, and terrible at acting writing scripts. He even admits as such, but still demanded to write the screenplays for the prequels. I never understand why.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    12. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously, you've never gotten a huge settlement check for having your man-parts torn off in a freak industrial accident.

      The prequels weren't *that* bad, were they?

    13. Re:heh by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He is a terrible writer and made the prequels on his own, and not inside of a studio. Not a soul could question him to revise or improve upon what he was doing.

      And while 1 was awful, 2 really wasn't terrible, and I'd contend that 3 is actually on par with A New Hope and Return of the Jedi.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    14. Re:heh by Pojut · · Score: 3, Informative

      Willow?
      American Graffiti?
      THX-1138?

      Willow was directed by Ron Howard, not Lucas. Granted, he was a producer, but it still wasn't totally "his baby".

      American Graffiti and THX-1138, though both amazingly awesome, were released prior to Star Wars.

    15. Re:heh by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Did he actually make any other films beside the 6 SW?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    16. Re:heh by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      love Indy, but all 4 are cheesy, unrealistic, and most lack a traditional Hollywood ending where Indy saves the day.

      Wait, I'm confused. Is that supposed to be criticism or praise?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    17. Re:heh by Pojut · · Score: 1

      If by "make" you mean "direct" (which is what I meant in my OP), his most famous other two are American Graffitti and THX-1138, both of which are amazing films...and both of which came out prior to Star Wars.

    18. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd contend that 3 is actually on par with A New Hope and Return of the Jedi.

      I have only one* word for you:

      "N(OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO)x10***"**

      *3
      **"DO NOT WANT!"
      ***This filter is being all fascist and denying my quote.

    19. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love Indy, but all 4 are cheesy, unrealistic, and most lack a traditional Hollywood ending where Indy saves the day.

      You've obviously never watched much James Bond. I guess, at least, James Bond always saves the day.

    20. Re:heh by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Then a cheesy no-emotion love story?

      FTFY

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    21. Re:heh by somersault · · Score: 1

      I've always liked the other Indies since I was a kid. Yes, now that I'm an adult the cheesiness and unrealism is very noticeable, but it's the same with James Bond, etc. Any action film that was actually "realistic" would be pretty dull (apart from perhaps District 13).

      Willow is cool, haven't seen the other two though, never even heard of them until I looked him up on IMDB earlier today.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    22. Re:heh by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Neither. I was just trying to fairly describe what the series is. I appreciate the films for what they are.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    23. Re:heh by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the time anyone's pitching something "light saber" like in their marketing materials [...] I can see why Lucas is trying to get the association away from his name.

      Maybe if Wicked had actually done that, you might have a point. But seeing as they don't make any mention of Star Wars, Lucas, Lightsabers, or anything even remotely connected to them in any way, this is just Lucas being a dick.

    24. Re:heh by Enderandrew · · Score: 0

      As an internet meme, it gets beat into the ground, but it is 2 seconds in a much larger movie.

      Return of the Jedi has Ewoks. People seem to forget how much Ewoks were hated when the movie first came out.

      Nothing new ever holds up to idealized versions of prior movies.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    25. Re:heh by Pojut · · Score: 1

      People seem to forget how much Ewoks were hated when the movie first came out

      They still are hated. A couple of weeks ago, we decided to embark on a "side-quest" in our pen & paper Star Wars RPG campaign by "accidentally" crash landing on the Forest moon of Endor...only to completely decimate the native Ewok population. Jägermeister, Jim Beam Rye whiskey, and a ton of coffee made us very creative in our destruction.

      Good times, good times.

    26. Re:heh by Wain13001 · · Score: 1

      While your point is completely valid with IJ, labyrinth was a box office failure. It made back about half of the film's cost and generally received very poor reviews.

    27. Re:heh by Tarantura · · Score: 1

      Star Wars prevented him from having any other successful films for the rest of this life, and he resents the series because of that.

      Indiana Jones. Fiancée hypothesis rejected.

    28. Re:heh by aarenz · · Score: 1

      Did you check on what they are actually doing. Wicked lasers is not connecting their device to light sabers, it is other online reviews of their product that are doing that. Go after the sites posting the reviews, not the manufacturer for making the connection. Their device looks more like a normal flashlight than a light saber.

    29. Re:heh by easterberry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and yet, despite that, is still the greatest movie ever made.

    30. Re:heh by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Odd that you'd point that out, but not that Spielberg directed all the Indy movies.

    31. Re:heh by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      yes...they were that bad. The only thing I liked at all from the first prequel was where obi-wan's mentor was killed in that fight scene near the end of the movie. That light saber fight was "almost" good enough to justify sitting through all the other shit.

    32. Re:heh by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      It wasn't "Star Wars" per-say that made it that way it was the Unions. By not showing credits at the beginning of the Star Wars movies due to detracting from the artistic display, he was kicked out of the Director's Guild. This made it difficult for him to do anything else. It meant most actors wouldn't work with him for fear of being kicked out of the Actors Guild. He then did most of his work as a producer and a special effects house.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    33. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>>My fiancee is convinced it's because Star Wars prevented him from having any other successful films for the rest of this life, and he resents the series because of that.

      No, actually it's the fact that he decided to go ahead with absolutely horrible films like "Howard the Duck", and such that no one takes him seriously.

    34. Re:heh by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Indiana Jones was great (the first 3 anyway).

      Everyone keeps talking about this 4th Indiana Jones film, but I've never seen it. I did once catch an X-Files prequel set in the 50's that starred Harrison Ford, but I hardly think it qualifies...

    35. Re:heh by BryanL · · Score: 3, Informative

      The company doesn't pitch it as a "light saber". Reviews of the product compare it to a light saber, but it is not marketed by the company as one. Lucas is complaining because the laser has a hilt like a sword or a light light saber. His argument is fairly weak IMO.

    36. Re:heh by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Indiana Jones was his idea, but Spielberg directed all of them. That's not to say that Lucas doesn't deserve credit, but to say that he mostly deserves credit for not tanking them the way that he tanks most of his films.

    37. Re:heh by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      A buddy of mine lost his cock and balls (motorcycle accident) but had a pretty fat settlement check. He turned into a fan of pegging/rimming/anal play.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    38. Re:heh by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      THAT was the light sabre duel next to the volcano that we have been waiting for since 1977.

      Still doesn't excuse the rest of the trilogy though...

      Perhaps we should start calling this the Zardoz effect.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    39. Re:heh by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      And how many slashdotters actually use those body parts?

    40. Re:heh by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As an internet meme, it gets beat into the ground, but it is 2 seconds in a much larger movie.

      Return of the Jedi has Ewoks. People seem to forget how much Ewoks were hated when the movie first came out.

      Nothing new ever holds up to idealized versions of prior movies.

      What about direct contradictions to the prior films? Are those simply 'not idealized', or is a reasonable person allowed to object to those as well?

      Episode 3 displayed, at a minimum:

      1) Leia never knew her mother, period, so what she says to Luke in IV is entirely BS.

      2) Vader wasn't in a suit because he was 'battle scarred', he fell into a damn volcano. Once. Most powerful force user to have ever existed can't figure out levitation, or pushing lava out of his way, or any such things. He falls into a hole, slapstick style, just like everyone else.

      3) Anakin didn't turn to the dark side because he was seduced by it, only because he wanted to learn how to raise Padme from the dead. Which he never actually attempted to do, as far as we know, so it was all for naught. Even so, he stays on the dark side for twenty-some years because... why?

      There's more, but I think you get the point.

      As a stand alone film, it probably was close to the original set. As the capstone in the prequel trilogy, not so much. Unless you like your retcons better than I do.

    41. Re:heh by easterberry · · Score: 1

      Alright, what about American Graffiti?

    42. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      D6,D20 or GURPS? :D

    43. Re:heh by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      George only directed the first movie.

      The others were directed by other people.

      Empire especially benefitted from this.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    44. Re:heh by Xupa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's EXACTLY what Stephen King did with "The Dark Tower." Humiliated every beloved character, one by one, set it in a world that bore ZERO resemblance to Mid-World, stuck his own dumb ass in it and wrote a note saying "Sorry it sucks, that's what you get for hassling me about it. Don't call. Love, Steve."

    45. Re:heh by Xupa · · Score: 0

      ...neither of which are known to anyone but Star Wars nerds.

    46. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I claim cease & desist on EVERY episode of starwars as a blantant copy right of traditonal fairy tales - or in the wookies case furry tales.

    47. Re:heh by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      This explains why Star Wars ruined the acting career of everyone in it, aside from Harison Ford, who 'coincidentally' was the lead actor in Lucas's other major hit series. If Indiana Jones had flopped, Harison Ford would probably not have had much more of a career either.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    48. Re:heh by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1

      Only a matter of time until the American Graffiti prequels. Then George can rape my parent's childhood too.

    49. Re:heh by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      The prequels weren't *that* bad, were they?

      As merchandising vehicles, no. They gave a context for the toys. So primary function achieved. As movies, hell yes. Started with the first one, and went downhill.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    50. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that why Vader was so mean?

    51. Re:heh by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      having your man-parts torn off in a freak industrial accident.

      That would be far too good for the creator of Jar Jar Binks.

    52. Re:heh by kimvette · · Score: 2, Funny

      He lost me at "what are midichlorians"

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    53. Re:heh by Pojut · · Score: 1

      3 Indiana Jones movies

      Lucas may have created the character, but Speilberg created the movies.

      Labyrinth?

      You dare mention Lucas' name in the same sentence as Labyrinth? I know he was a producer on the film, but come on...Jim Henson (for the puppet work and, you know, freakin' directing it) and David Bowie (for making a lot of the crazy music truly come alive) get the credit on that one.

      Mentioning Lucas and Labyrinth in the same sentence? Fuck off and die. Wait...I just did it too... ::fucks off and dies::

    54. Re:heh by saider · · Score: 1

      Today there is a spike on Google for the term "pegging".

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    55. Re:heh by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The pod race was pretty awesome , both sight and sound.

      --
      Good-bye
    56. Re:heh by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Indiana Jones.

      Which weren't his movies. The character was his, but the movies belong to Spielberg.

    57. Re:heh by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Force user vs Force user = slapstick sometimes. Anakin was stupid in attacking Obi-wan in his position and rage blinded him to the tactical situation. Thats EXACTLY how you take out an immature Sith. TO address #3, he committed to the Dark Side by killing Mace Windu. At that point Anakin died and Darth Vader came to be. You cannot turn your back to the Dark Side once you commit dark acts. Also he WAS seduced by the dark side, it had knowledge he sought, which was born from attachment. Everything Anakin did proves the reasons why Jedi are not supposed to have attachments.

      --
      Good-bye
    58. Re:heh by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      You cannot turn your back to the Dark Side once you commit dark acts.

      You might check out 'Return of the Jedi' some time. In my opinion, it was the best of the entire saga.

    59. Re:heh by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. Leia was raised by the Organa family. She was also hailed as a Princess because people believed she truly was the child of Bail Organa. The person she believed was her mother wasn't actually her mother.

      2. Lucas said for I think 20 years in various interviews that he always envisioned the Vader/Obi-Wan duel would take place on a volcano planet. I think Starlog magazines were writing about this in the early 80's. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by something that has been somewhat canon for decades.

      Anakin has a lengthy, exhausting duel in the heat and then has his legs chopped off. In the pain and anger of that moment, he didn't think to move himself with telekinesis. Perhaps the pain of dual amputation distracted him. Using telekinesis seems to require full concentration. Yoda couldn't deal with Dooku and use telekinesis at the same time.

      3. Never is it suggested that the Sith power in question raises people from the dead, but rather stops one from dying in the first place. And even though he wanted that power to protect Padme, it wasn't enough to push him to the dark side. He stays loyal to the Jedi beliefs basically right up to the point he inadvertently leads to Mace Windu's death. I'd have to assume he'd be expelled from the Jedi order over those events.

      It would seem he felt he could never go back, and had no choice but to change allegiances at that point. Immediately killing kids after that seems like a bit of a stretch, but it certainly doesn't directly contradict the original trilogy as you suggest.

      Lucas never had a grand vision. He changed his mind all the time. He was just largely stealing from Flash Gordon, Dune, and Hidden Fortress and accidentally created this masterpiece with the original trilogy.

      After Episode 1 he promised Ric Olie was going to be a major character in the trilogy, along with Aura Sing. He promised Episode 2 would explain Force Ghosts, and the Episode 3 would.

      Early drafts for Star Wars had aliens who used spice to fold space. General Skywalker/Starkiller was the old war veteran, not the farmboy.

      He also said when making the original trilogy that the overall storyline was about Luke and restoring the Jedi order. After the prequels, he says the larger story is all about Anakin/Vader.

      Lucas is full of shit. But, your three points aren't contradictions.

      If you're *really* curious, you should read this:

      http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    60. Re:heh by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      What are you saying? This movie wasn't successful?!?! I'm heartbroken! ;-)

    61. Re:heh by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Midichlorians were fucking stupid.

      Lucas said he was really shocked how fans took to Boba Fett, a minor background character. But they loved the mystery of him.

      He never learned that wisdom, and sought to destroy the mystery of the Force. That being said, I like to believe that correlation is not causation. Midichlorians can sense Force Sensitive creatures, and a high midichlorian count is indicative of a strong Force user, but that doesn't mean Midichlorians create the Force.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    62. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The novelization addresses this: Annakin wants to kill Palpatine when he hears what has happened, but doesn't because Palpatine is all he has left.

      Really, after you betray everyone who cares about you to try to save someone, are you just going to become good again? I don't think so.

    63. Re:heh by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      1)...

      Princess Leia: Luke, what's wrong?
      Luke: Leia, do you remember your mother? Your real mother?
      Princess Leia: Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.
      Luke: What do you remember?
      Princess Leia: Just... images really. Feelings.
      Luke: Tell me.
      Princess Leia: She was... very beautiful. Kind, but sad. Why are you asking me this?
      Luke: I have no memory of my mother. I never knew her.

      You're inventing material that isn't present in the dialog. Why?

      2a) Lucas never said that Anakin's only injuries were due to a single battle. You're picking nits, are you not? Vader was supposed to hunt Jedi, but that never happened, did it?

      2b) Right. Yoda couldn't do it, but the most powerful being ever to exist, fueled by rage and deeply in touch with the darkside, he shouldn't be able to do it either. Perhaps, but it is stupidly cheap, and diminishes the character.

      3) It is implicit.

      Chancellor Palpatine: I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise, that he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create... life. He had such a knowledge of the Dark Side that he could even keep the ones he cared about... from dying.
      Anakin Skywalker: He could actually... save people from death?
      Chancellor Palpatine: The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

      If we're not talking about ghouls and zombies here, then what are we referring to? Is blocking a blaster bolt with your saber, saving the intended target from death, somehow more natural than other powers would be?

      Lucas never had a grand vision. He changed his mind all the time. He was just largely stealing from Flash Gordon, Dune, and Hidden Fortress and accidentally created this masterpiece with the original trilogy.

      This.

      And yes, indeed, they are contradictions. If one has to invent material to fill the gaps then it is reasonable to understand how someone might criticize the work.

    64. Re:heh by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Carie Fisher was kinda batnut crazy, Mark Hammil was in that car accident that messed up his face. He still had an exceptional career as a voice actor, check out his IMDB page some time.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    65. Re:heh by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      The novelization addresses this: Annakin wants to kill Palpatine when he hears what has happened, but doesn't because Palpatine is all he has left.

      There may or may not be adequate explanations available, but the movie leaves a lot to be desired, which was my point. If you need to turn to a third party after the fact for bridging material then you are likely looking at a symptom of a deeper problem. Especially when we're talking about non-minor things.

      Really, after you betray everyone who cares about you to try to save someone, are you just going to become good again? I don't think so.

      The typical stages for anger and grief do not end in 'deeply commit yourself to the one who betrayed you and cost you your only love', as far as I can remember them.

    66. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Two words : adoptive parents. Luke was the bait who kept his real surname and lived with the family. Leia was adopted to Alderaan.

      2) Well, he did fall into the lava during a battle. True, the "I'm higher than you, you can't win" was so cheesy I nearly puked. Vader still needed his suit to function properly, and yes, his toasted bald face was probably warranted a mask.

      3) He was tempted by the dark side earlier. "Wanting to keep her safe", yada-yada. Raising Padme from the dead was the final straw. BTW, did you see how fast he turned against his master when his son was getting fried? I guess he did realize the futility of the dark side; there was nothing really worthwhile to gain from that side, other than ruling the galaxy (which is neat, but gets boring after a while.)

      As a whole, I'd rather jump off a cliff than watch the episodes one to three ever again. (slashdot captcha knowingly uses the word "compost")

    67. Re:heh by Pojut · · Score: 1

      D20 all the way!

      Although we are considering putting together a Star Wars/Shadowrun mashup run in GURPS.

    68. Re:heh by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I dont consider Vader 'redeemed'. He still did far more evil than good. He might have had a moment of clarity at the end, but that doesnt make up for the evil he sowed across the galaxy. IT was only because of Obi-Wan and Qui-gon that he was able to astral project at all.

      --
      Good-bye
    69. Re:heh by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    70. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Who did Leia grow up thinking was her mother? Bail Organa's wife. Obviously, she died while Leia was young. No conflict with the original trilogy at all.
      2) He most certainly was battle scarred *and* had a close encounter with lava. At various points he lost both arms and both legs and caught on fire as a result of falling too close to a lava flow. (Someone who actually falls *into* lava doesn't come out and get stuffed into a life-support suit. He doesn't come out at all.) Regardless, this can't be a conflict with the original trilogy, because how Vader came to be in the suit was never *mentioned* in the original trilogy.
      3) I'm with you on this one. Anakin's fall to the dark side wasn't well portrayed, but that's not a conflict with the original trilogy either, because there were no details given in the original trilogy. In fact, the only person to discuss it at all was Obi-Wan, and he certainly wasn't there to witness the fall itself. More of the process needed to be shown, rather than implied. As it stands, you see two big dark-side moments with Anakin. The slaughter of the Tusken Raiders, and when he force chokes Padme in a jealous rage. Then he falls to the dark side. It needed to be played up more. More subtle moments and more foreshadowing. Unfortunately, that would probably have turned 3 movies into 5, but that's a problem with the modern movie format than anything else.

      My biggest gripe with the prequels? Lucas forgot he can't write dialogue, and nobody who was around had the balls to remind him. Plot? Great. Location? Superb. Action? Solid. Characters? Good. Motivation? Mostly fine. Dialogue? Cheesy.
      None of that distinguishes the prequels from the original trilogy though. Sure, Empire had solid dialogue, but Lucas had someone helping him with it then. Compare the dialogue from prequels with the dialogue from A New Hope objectively, and you'll see that there's not a significant difference in the quality. The dialogue stands out more in the prequels because we're more sophisticated now (as adults) than we were when the original trilogy was released.

    71. Re:heh by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      1. I'm not inventing dialog. We see her handed over to Bail Organa. She is raised as a Princess of Alderaan. Generally, if people know you aren't a legitimate child, you aren't considered royalty. It stands to reason she believed she was a true Organa child, and her mother she refereneced is Bail's wife, who died when she was young.

      2. We do see him hunt down and kill Jedi in Episode 3. Beyond that, there are 18 years until A New Hope. There are some surivors of the initial purge in Episode 3, which is why Obi Wan and Yoda change the signal at the Jedi Temple. It is apparently implied that somewhere over those 18 years he hunted down the remaining Jedi.

      3. The dialog is implicit. I agree. He says he saves them from dying. He doesn't say that he takes people who are already dead and resurrects them, which is exactly what I said.

      There is no need to "fill in material". If anything, you're using filler material to bitch. You claim Vader's injuries contradict the original trilogy. Where in the original trilogy are Vader's injuries explicitly stated? In any movie, play, book, whatever, there are actions which take place "off-camera" and are inferred.

      For instance, in Phantom of the Opera, most of the love story with Christine and the Phantom is never once shown. It is implied his mentorship of her all occured previous to what is shown to the audience. Reading into that inferrence isn't making crap up. The characters refer to those events in dialog even though they aren't shown.

      You're basically bitching the prequels didn't match your assumptions and then claiming that is a contradiction of canon.

      You're demonstrating pretty clear logical fallacies here.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    72. Re:heh by balbus000 · · Score: 1

      I believe that would be a hellaionaire.

    73. Re:heh by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Of course, right when I don't have any mod points I read this.

      2. Lucas said for I think 20 years in various interviews that he always envisioned the Vader/Obi-Wan duel would take place on a volcano planet. I think Starlog magazines were writing about this in the early 80's. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by something that has been somewhat canon for decades.

      I would agree with this, when I read the original Star Wars novels as a kid, it definitely said that Darth Vader wears his suit because of some volcanic/lava incident while fighting Obi Wan. Before the last film even came out I knew this was going to happen. Stuck with me all those years I guess.

    74. Re:heh by DMadCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A reasonable person maybe.

      1. That was episode VI (6), not episode (IV) and her memory of her mother was described as "Images really. Feelings." Which (with little imagination and some empathy) could be attributed to a little girl's idealization of a mother she never knew blurred over time.

      2. When in the series did anyone ever explain that Vader wore a suit because he was 'battle-scarred'? When did you see any jedi save possibly yoda actually levitate or indeed ever use the force to move against inertia? I don't think I need to mention how stupid the lava comment was.

      3. The one thing we're told again and again about the force is that you can't just jump sides whenever you please. Once you turn to the dark side, you can't just go back (especially when, to get there, you murdered a bunch of children). He gave hints that he was dissatisfied with how the Senate was running things and intimated that he could do better. The second and third movies were all about his dissatisfaction with the Jedi order and his yearning to use his considerable power to force people to conform to his world view, held back only by his jedi training, but fostered by the soon to be emperor. Aside from all that, it was Obi Wan (who wasn't actually there when he turned) who told Luke he was seduced by the Dark Side which just makes that line hearsay.

      I'm sure you have more and I'm sure they're just as well thought out and shallow as these. There is criticism that can be leveraged against the Star Wars saga as written by Lucas but frankly, you can do that to any movie or set of movies in hindsight.

    75. Re:heh by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Willow was directed by Ron Howard, not Lucas. Granted, he was a producer, but it still wasn't totally "his baby".

      Willow definitely counts! He wasn't *a* producer, he was executive producer AND screenwriter. Same as Empire and Return of the Jedi, he didn't direct those either...

    76. Re:heh by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Then a cheesy no-lust love story?

      If it was no-lust, where did Luke and Leia come from? Most of ep II had to do with unrequited lust, and ep II had to do with its aftermath.

    77. Re:heh by ktappe · · Score: 1

      THAT was the light sabre duel next to the volcano that we have been waiting for since 1977.

      Still doesn't excuse the rest of the trilogy though...

      Perhaps we should start calling this the Zardoz effect.

      Having seen Zardoz and having the image of Sean Connery wearing a near-loincloth standing in the mouth of mountain-man permanently seared into my brain for life, I'm still not entirely clear how you would define your "Zardoz Effect". Is it to mean a film that is so monumentally bad it ensures no sequels? Or one that gets word-of-mouth via its badness? Surely not one that has one good scene at the end that made the previous 2 hours of viewing worth it, because Zardoz had no good scenes.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    78. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fap fap fap fap fap fap

    79. Re:heh by Pyrus.mg · · Score: 1

      1. Leia was raised by the Organa family. She was also hailed as a Princess because people believed she truly was the child of Bail Organa. The person she believed was her mother wasn't actually her mother.

      Luke specifically asked Leia if she remembered her real mother.

      LUKE Leia... do you remember your mother? Your real mother?

      LEIA Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.

      P.S. Please don't sue me Mr. Lucas! It's only a little quote, I swear it's fair use.

    80. Re:heh by sdnick · · Score: 1

      Anyone else notice how Lucas tends to just shit all over anything remotely reminiscent of Star Wars?

      Well, yeah - those new Star Wars movies he put out this decade were vaguely reminiscent of Star Wars.

      My fiancee is convinced it's because Star Wars prevented him from having any other successful films for the rest of this life, and he resents the series because of that.

      My own suspicion is that George Lucas prevents George Lucas from having any other successful films for the rest of this life. I can't even begin to conceive the amount of long-term insulation from reality and the layers of yes-man sycophancy that it took to keep the man from realizing just how bad his attempts at movie-making had become. Just MHO of course.

    81. Re:heh by ultranova · · Score: 1

      And while 1 was awful, 2 really wasn't terrible, and I'd contend that 3 is actually on par with A New Hope and Return of the Jedi.

      However, the book version is still far superior. But that's mainly because it gets inside the character's heads in ways the movie can't.

      But the best Star Wars story is Darth Side, Darth Vader's blog. That's pure concentrated awesome in literary form.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    82. Re:heh by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Worse, actually. There was no huge settlement check. In fact, they wouldn't even refund the ticket.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    83. Re:heh by boxwood · · Score: 1

      but the problem with the prequels is that the stuff that occurs off-camera is some of the most important things in the story line.

      The prequels had to establish that obi-wan and anakin were good friends. Apparently the were good friends off-screen as indicated by a line of dialog in ep2 and a line of dialog in ep3. On screen we see them constantly bickering when they're together and when they're apart anakin is always complaining about how obi-wan is holding him back and doesn't understand, and obi wan is telling the jedi council that anakin is too dangerous to be trusted. So what the prequels show is these two guys that never liked each other from the beginning end up fighting to the death.

      Anakin was supposed to be a good man that turned to the dark side. But in the prequels he seemed obnoxious and power hungry all along. And why did he turn to the dark side? because the Jedis lied to him? OMG they lied to me... now off I go to kill a bunch of children. And Palpatine tells him he can bring back the dead... and it never occurs to anakin that he may be lying? Palpatine never gave any proof that he had this ability. Anakin just took him on his word. So he's an evil master of dark powers.... but I'm sure he'd never LIE to anyone to benefit himself. Even though thats what he was doing all through the movies to gain power.

      And the love story between Anakin and padme.... "No anakin we can't be together... What you killed a bunch of sand people, including women and children? I'm all yours baby!"

      Sorry dude nothing about these movies makes any sense. They're just crap.

    84. Re:heh by boxwood · · Score: 1

      the problem I had with it was obi wan just walked away, leaving someone who was supposedly his friend to burn to death. He had no reason to do this. If he cared about his friend he would have killed him to end his pain. If he was just being pragmatic, he would have killed him just to be sure the galaxy had one less sith in it.

      Either way you look at it, it was stupid for him to walk away.

    85. Re:heh by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Vader wasn't in a suit because he was 'battle scarred', he fell into a damn volcano.

      He had his legs cut off by Obi Wan. I think that counts as battle scarred in most people's book.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    86. Re:heh by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Apparently Leia fell in love with Han between A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, except you didn't see those years in between. Empire Strikes Back must be crap.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    87. Re:heh by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Daily. Whether or not it's being used for the INTENDED purpose, OTOH....

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    88. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really doesn't matter.

    89. Re:heh by saxoholic · · Score: 1

      That's interesting, because he takes the opposite stance about Family Guy Star Wars. (about 0:56 in) Seth asks him: "Why did you let us do this?" "...ultimately, we don't have to be mean. We're not really that competitive... NOT the you must be destroyed, you must fail so I can win, that sort of thing." I wonder if this came from George himself, or just from some lawyer in the middle. I mean, obviously he couldn't ultimately stop the parody, so it's a different scenario, just interesting to see him make a hypocrite of himself.

    90. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    91. Re:heh by Arcorn · · Score: 1

      THAT was the light sabre duel next to the volcano that we have been waiting for since 1977.

      Still doesn't excuse the rest of the trilogy though...

      Perhaps we should start calling this the Zardoz effect.

      Different movies, he's talking about The Phantom Menance, not Revenge of the Sith but they were both so bad I can understand you mixing them up.

      But seriously, any person over the age of 10 knows how annoying that light sabre duel was and how useless it was. Star Wars went from hidden meaning to just special effects to tell a story rather than just aiding it.

    92. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you are the defacto SW fact guy... how come Vader was as strong after he lost his arms and legs? I mean, the mitichlorians would have spilled out and lost, no? Do they reproduce? Why can't you set up a miti-plasma filter and siphon them from other Jedi? If I had the power, I'd capture/kill Jedi and filter them into me. That'd rock!

  6. Me too. by JohnG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't care about the legal implications of what the laser looks like, but I think it would be a lot cooler to have if it didn't look like a toy. I don't want someone getting a hold of it and thinking it is a light saber and shooting me with it. Dangerous tools should never be made to resemble toys, regardless of who owns the trademarks on the toys.

    1. Re:Me too. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      "The shrink ray doesn't shoot pools, Shake! It's not a toy!"

      "You say that about everything you own...maybe you should just buy toys."

    2. Re:Me too. by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It doesn't really look like a toy IMHO. It just looks "sleek". A ton of money, even in tool, is spent into making items look futuristic and appealing. When I bought my truck for example I bought it primarily as a tow vehicle for my fishing boat, but I still bought an upgraded appearance package on it because despite it being bought for utility purposes, I still wanted it to look nice too.

      Same with tons of things. Just because it has a snazzy appearance doesn't mean it looks like a toy. I'd wager the ONLY reason you say that is that you're making the same mistake Lucas is - if it's a small laser that is remotely attractive looking then it just has to be copying a lightsaber so the only thing it's good for is to swing it around and making buzzing noises.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Me too. by AngryNick · · Score: 1

      Dangerous tools should never be made to resemble toys, regardless of who owns the trademarks on the toys.

      That was my first thought when I saw the laser mentioned here a month ago. How many uniformed parents are going to buy the laser for their kid thinking it's a toy, only to learn (hopefully not the hard way) that it can/will cause instantaneous blindness -- even by reflection. Wicked's design decision was irresponsible at best, but probably more like reckless.

    4. Re:Me too. by BadBlood · · Score: 1

      As my wife is so fond of saying...."It's all about the packaging."

      --


      Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
    5. Re:Me too. by Imagix · · Score: 1

      Uh, why are you leaving a dangerous implement lying around where one can "get a hold of it"?

    6. Re:Me too. by JohnG · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't leave it laying around kids, but the thing looks exactly like a light saber. Even an adult is likely to pick it up and play with it. I would say the same thing if Smith & Wesson made a gun that looked like a blaster from a Sci-Fi movie. Yes, dangerous equipment should be stored in safe places, but there should also be a responsibility on the part of the manufacturer to not deliberately mimic the look of pop culture items.
      Some have argued that the laser only looks like a lightsaber because it is cylindrical and looks "sleek". I disagree, Wicked Lasers makes many lasers that are sleek and do not look like light sabers. If you look at the full image on their website, and not just the one in the article, you will see how light saber like it is.
      Any further proof is abundant in the original article announcing the laser here on slashdot. It was rife with light saber comments. It wasn't until George Lucas agreed that everyone started saying that it doesn't look like one.

    7. Re:Me too. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Kids of "uninformed" parents are just as likely to get this

    8. Re:Me too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, but you'd have to be a tool to miss their warnings and extra warnings presented during checkout.

    9. Re:Me too. by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      How many uniformed parents are going to buy the laser for their kid

      They'd be silly to do that, when they could just wear regular street clothes instead.
      [/pedant]

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    10. Re:Me too. by AngryNick · · Score: 1

      they could just wear regular street clothes instead.

      touché. :-) Damn dyslexia

    11. Re:Me too. by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      That may be just you. I like my trucks to look like I built them myself in my garage. I've also recently dyed my hair white, and try to keep it as dishevelled as possible, while peppering conversations with the phrase "Great Scott!" as often as possible.

      Great Scott! I've got to run!

    12. Re:Me too. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      As my wife is so fond of saying...."It's all about the packaging."

      Hm. I think we need to see a picture of your wife.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:Me too. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Wicked's design decision was irresponsible at best, but probably more like reckless."

      Okay, let's see *YOU* try cooling a laser that powerful without any active cooling system and still make it functional enough to be hand-held.

      Guess what? That design is almost a damned NECESSITY.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  7. This is not the lightsaber you are looking for. by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1

    This is the look & feel suit in meat-space this time. Those never go anywhere.

    --
    -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
  8. OMFG by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope Lucas also got a patent on a process for establishing "prior art" through the use of a non-functional prop, imagination, and delusions of grandeur.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:OMFG by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Copyright has nothing to do with prior art. Patents and copyrights are different.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The point is that Lucas is suing a company that makes something real (patent related) because it infringes something in a story (copyright related).

      GP also said "a process". Processes are patentable.

    3. Re:OMFG by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I hope Lucas also got a patent on a process for establishing "prior art" through the use of a non-functional prop, imagination, and delusions of grandeur.

      I believe we call that process "establishing a trademark"
      I'm not surprised that 3 people, who know nothing about trademarks, modded you up.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:OMFG by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      You can trademark and copyright designs. Lucas doesn't care that they are lasers. He only cares that they look too much like Star Wars lightsabers. It is a judgment call whether they are appear to be or not.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the way it looks that is being questioned, not its functionality.
      Their design is similar to what was used in Star Wars, not the fact that it is a working laser.

      If someone copies a Star Wars toy they would be sued just as well, regardless if it is a working thing or not.

    6. Re:OMFG by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shouldn't every flashlight company in the world be able to sue for a share of Star Wars royalties, then? A light saber looks basically like a fancy flashlight.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    7. Re:OMFG by Br00se · · Score: 4, Informative

      But the Star Wars props aren't original designs. The early ones were Graflex flash guns with very minor modifications. They evolved slightly over the years, but the design didn't originate with Lucas.

      Basically George is mad that someone ripped off a design that he ripped off already.

    8. Re:OMFG by cfulton · · Score: 1

      I think it must be obvious by now; George has lost his mind. Reality is no longer able to push its way through the giant pile of money blocking the entrance to his home. Please George, just stop doing anything. Sit down at the Skywalker ranch and do nothing.

      --
      No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    9. Re:OMFG by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Is Lucas working for Disney now?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:OMFG by DinDaddy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or maybe a certain photographic flash maker in particular?

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

    11. Re:OMFG by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      That's like saying every game console looks like an Atari, every Impressionist painting is a Monet, every sculpture looks like a Rodin. Trademark and copyright protect artistic expression. Whether Lucas has a case is another matter.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    12. Re:OMFG by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      He only cares that they look too much like Star Wars lightsabers.

      Which part? Star Wars lightsabers have exactly two external identifying characteristics: a flat, exposed "reflector plate", and a beam that magically stops a few feet from the hilt. The hilts themselves were up to the users. Some were artistically handcrafted, but more often they were just constructed from convenient junk; no two were entirely alike. Since this product lacks both the "reflector plate" and the characteristic shaped beam, I fail to see how it is in any way like a Star Wars lightsaber.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    13. Re:OMFG by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow. That's amazing. It makes sense, but I had no idea how true this was until I Google'd it...

      http://www.google.com/images?q=Graflex%20flash%20guns

    14. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that Graflex should have sue lucasfilm for making their lightsaber look exactly like a Graflex 3 cell flash handle.

    15. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people laughed when we said they'd start getting this shit mixed up once they started batting around the "intellectual property" catchall term.

    16. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, if this housing for this laser is a replica of an actual lightsaber prop used in one of the Star Wars branded products, then Lucas has a case.

      The thing is, Jedi custom build their own light saber, so each one is unique. I think Lucas is saying that the laser looks like what a Jedi might build for himself, in that it generally resembles what would be recognized as a light saber to anyone who is familiar with the Star Wars branded properties. If that is indeed what his case is based on, then he has clearly gone too far.

    17. Re:OMFG by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Basically George is mad that someone ripped off a design that he ripped off already.

      Ha. You could be talking about Steve Jobs.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    18. Re:OMFG by Masterofpsi · · Score: 1

      I hope Lucas also got a patent on a process for establishing "prior art" through the use of a non-functional prop, imagination, and delusions of grandeur.

      I doubt it, but he may own the copyright on the phrase "delusions of grandeur."

    19. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't making a fucking toy. It is not a sabre, in that you can't have a sword fight with it like you can with the ones in the film. The primary resemblance between this company's product and Luca's Light Sabre is that the handle is cylindrical (the same shape, but not even the same design as a Light Sabre) and they both emit light. Lucas didn't fucking invent the Light Sabre, to invent something you have to make something that actually work, not just just looks good in a film when you add special effects.

      Lucas is just being a dick, this isn't similar enough to his Light Sabre to have a valid case, it is not marketed as being a Light Sabre, and Lucas doesn't have any patents on how to make a Light Sabre, so there can't possibly be any patent infringement.

  9. Not thinking this through, George... by mujadaddy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...they're the ones with the functioning lasers!

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    1. Re:Not thinking this through, George... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good lawyer at your side.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:Not thinking this through, George... by jacktherobot · · Score: 1

      Its a trap! He can't repel firepower of that magnitude!

    3. Re:Not thinking this through, George... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good lawyer at your side, kid.

      That was SO CLOSE to the perfect comment. SO CLOSE...

    4. Re:Not thinking this through, George... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Sharks with lasers vs attorneys with cease and desist orders.

      The battle begins.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Not thinking this through, George... by BerryMadness · · Score: 1

      [cheesht]I find your lack of faith disturbing.

    6. Re:Not thinking this through, George... by VShael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good lawyer at your side.

      These days, the hokey religions have lawyers on their side. (Scientology, the Roman Pedo^H^H^H^HCatholic Church etc...)

  10. safety issues by rcb1974 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Like the old saying goes...

    "How many times can you look directly into a laser beam before going blind? Twice, once for each eye."

    The last thing I want is a blue laser in the hands of a 7 year old. Don't we have laws preventing this sort of thing? I'm glad that this toy costs $200 as that will make it unaffordable for most.

    This makes me want to wear orange goggles all the time.

    1. Re:safety issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if your buying your 7 year old a 200$ military grade laser you get whats coming to you

    2. Re:safety issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the only way for an irresponsible child, 7 years old or otherwise, to get a hold of something dangerous is by the direct action of their parent.

      Sounds a little naive to me.

    3. Re:safety issues by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ""How many times can you look directly into a laser beam before going blind? Twice, once for each eye.""

      Ha, I'm so good with a laser I did it in one try!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:safety issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Bono is safe!

    5. Re:safety issues by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      This makes me want to wear orange goggles all the time.

      *laugh* Well, if it's orange goggles, I think I'm safe.

      I've worn sunglasses with orange lenses for most of the last decade because I find it improves my vision and color contrast like no other lens tint -- specifically because it blocks a lot of the blue spectrum your eye isn't making use of anyway, and therefore enhances the colors you can see.

      If it also keeps the laser-equipped sharks at bay, I'm good! =)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:safety issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't we have laws preventing this sort of thing?

      We once did, but every time we sent cops out to arrest the sun, they never came back. Eventually it got cheaper to just tell people to avert their gaze from bright lights.

    7. Re:safety issues by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I tried those... found that in bright sun they caused my eyes to get sunburned. So now I only use them in poor-contrast situations, like light rain or light fog, where they do help.

      They also mess up your depth perception and colour vision over time, tho a lot of people don't notice unless they need one or the other for their daily work.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    8. Re:safety issues by rcb1974 · · Score: 1

      Unbelievable that my post about safety concerns got modded as Troll. These toys contain real lasers, and having done GaN (blue) laser development I know how dangerous they are. Maybe in the next few years as the price of blue lasers continues to drop, we'll hear more stories about people getting blinded by them.

    9. Re:safety issues by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I tried those... found that in bright sun they caused my eyes to get sunburned.

      Really? Mine have always been 100% UVA/UVB, so if anything, I get raccoon eyes because the parts covered by the glasses never get tanned, and they're wrap-arounds. Heck, most pictures of me it he last decade have me in orange lenses.

      They also mess up your depth perception and colour vision over time, tho a lot of people don't notice unless they need one or the other for their daily work.

      I have no idea if that is the case -- I've literally worn them every time I'm outside in the daytime in all weather conditions for a decade. Apparently I'm in the minority, and usually have to look very hard to find a replacement pair when they break -- I literally went to 10 different places the other week to find a pair.

      And, I find I don't need to wear my corrective lenses when I drive a car (weak near-sightedness) -- it actually improves my depth perception, and when I'm wearing them at least, improves my color vision. Except for night driving (which I will sometimes still use the orange lenses for), I've not worn my glasses in a long time.

      For me, it's now how I'd prefer to see the world when out in daylight.

      I guess your mileage may vary. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:safety issues by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Sunburned is maybe the wrong word -- mine are super-duper blueblockers too. Infrared burn, more like -- in bright hot Calif sun it actually feels like my eyes are being cooked.

      I expect how your vision is affected depends on a lot of things, including how good your distance vision is to start with. I'm slightly myopic in my natural state, and don't notice the depth perception thing -- but I do notice it screwing up colour vision (but I'm also one of those four-colour vision freaks). However a friend who has perfect distance vision and needs that for his work complained that it was getting messed up.

      So indeed, our vision does vary. :)

      For everyday use I buy Air Force sunglasses, natural grey and with real glass lenses. I can SEE even the best plastics (I can see my contact lenses too!) and it never stops bothering me. I have noticed that the natural grey/glass lens does a slight correction on my distance vision, in that stuff has sharper edges. (My myopia isn't quite typical -- stuff doesn't blur out at some distance, rather it fails to focus. So I can see the windmills 30 miles away or see all the letters on the street signs, but the edges won't resolve.)

      Regardless... do not stare into laser with remaining eye! :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:safety issues by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Infrared burn, more like -- in bright hot Calif sun it actually feels like my eyes are being cooked.

      Yeah, I was in Cuba a few times, and everything felt like it was getting cooked. :-P

      but I do notice it screwing up colour vision (but I'm also one of those four-colour vision freaks)

      Wow, the mythical four-colour vision. That must be different -- I understand that to be quite rare.

      I'm aware of the colour shift from the orange lenses, but when I first realized that a red flower in a sea of green 'popped' with the lenses, and was almost invisible without, I decided that the colour shift was actually more advantageous. I actually see 'more' in that the shift highlights some things that might almost be invisible otherwise, and doesn't really affect the rest very much. (OK, blue cars look slightly more purple, but I've mentally adjusted my expectation.)

      I find the gray lenses distort the colour in a way that makes things less visible to me, and in even slightly lower light makes it too dark. Never could get used to yellow, that was too much of a colour shift for me.

      Ah well, human vision is a wacky thing I suppose. :-P

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:safety issues by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Unbelievable that my post about safety concerns got modded as Troll.

      Regrettably, there's no option to mod something "KillJoy". Those are the breaks.

    13. Re:safety issues by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Your vision sounds like my neighbour -- she has a definite issue with not being able to see much contrast, especially if yellow is involved. She doesn't test colour-blind but just doesn't seem to see yellow very well, especially traffic lights and pavement markers. She is very myopic and about runs into walls without her contacts. (With glasses, she has marked tunnel vision.) Come to mention it she likes the blueblockers too.

      She has very poor night vision; conversely I see very well in the dark, well enough to regularly get accused of being a vampire :) "Black lights" are painfully bright to my eyes, and you will never see me outdoors in daylight without a hat and sunglasses!

      One day she lost a bright red marker out in the grass (well, dry brown grass and sand) and could not find it anywhere... I spotted it immediately. She was wearing her contacts and I was not. (I don't usually except for driving, tho I'm legal to drive without.) Kindof akin to your thing with the red flower not being real visible... Between all this, I suspect there is a level of colour vision that isn't colour-blind, but sees them with less than average intensity under normal/unfiltered light. Might have to do with cone density on the retina.

      Side thought from our unique eyes and brains: if eyeball transplants could happen, there would be a lot of complaints about "hey! this is all colour-shifted! I want a different eye!" :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:safety issues by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Hard to say. I'm not aware of any particular colours I can't see, and under normal circumstances I think I can see a fairly normal spectrum and contrast.

      In the case of the red flower, it was several hundred feet away. Without the glasses, it was a small red speck in a large field that I barely noticed. With them, it was a fairly glaring thing that leapt out at me. It's not like up close I can't see red against green.

      I've actually seen signs that are blue and red lights -- depending on the shade, and how dark out it is, I can't directly see the blue if the red is there, I can only see it peripherally. I've just always assumed it's because they're on the opposite end of the spectrum, and your eye can't do both at the same time.

      In the case of my orange glasses, I think it just reduces the overall amount of blue I see, and lets the reds come to the fore. Again, always assumed it was how much the eye has to dilate (or not) to see blue/red -- sort of like red-light to keep your night vision.

      *laugh* I guess if you had only one eye transplanted, you could end up with a mismatched set. That would mess you up.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:safety issues by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [goes off, looks at adjacent blue and red stuff] Well, having both in sight doesn't seem to cause my eye to see more/less of one or the other..??

      When I bought my previous monitor, the dealer thought I was stark staring... they had about 50 hooked up and I only liked one. No, I don't want one in a box, I want the one on the display rack, cuz I already know that one's colour is right! (Viewsonic CRTs are just about dead on, and it goes downhill from there.)

      What was the topic again? Oh yeah, whether George Lucas' brain is coloured green, and whether it's from envy or greed. I think we can agree on that, no matter how we "see" it. :D

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    16. Re:safety issues by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Computer screens must look odd to you, then...

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    17. Re:safety issues by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of them do -- too much brightness required to simulate real colours; colour being off one direction or another; pixels too individually visible; and at the moment the support wire is across the middle of the comment box. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  11. God Schmod, I want my monkeyman! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    0.5W ?! Call me when they sell a real laser.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:God Schmod, I want my monkeyman! by rcb1974 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you need to be worried about is not just the power, but the intensity (power density, or power/spot_size). If the spot size is 1mm diameter, then the power density would be:

      sunlight = 1000 W/m^2 (intensity of sunlight)
      laser_toy = 0.5 W/(0.001^2) = 500000 W/m^2

      500000/1000 = 500 times brighter than the sun!

      Let me know if my calculations are wrong... Haven't done this in awhile.

    2. Re:God Schmod, I want my monkeyman! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It is a real laser.

      Here, let me shoot you in the eye.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:God Schmod, I want my monkeyman! by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      sunlight = 1000 W/m^2 (intensity of sunlight)
      laser_toy = 0.5 W/(0.001^2) = 500000 W/m^2

      500000/1000 = 500 times brighter than the sun!

      Let me know if my calculations are wrong... Haven't done this in awhile.

      Well, not exactly right on the calculations or the assumptions. The power output is more like 1W, and the beam is approximately a 2mm X 3mm rectangle if their optics are similar to the optics others are using with these laser diodes. It's certainly not a 1mm round beam. So, 1/(.002*.003)=166667 W/m^2. Still 167 times more intense than the sun.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    4. Re:God Schmod, I want my monkeyman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you assuming a square spot? The number's even higher if it's round! OK now I want one too.

    5. Re:God Schmod, I want my monkeyman! by rcb1974 · · Score: 1

      Your calculations and assumptions are more accurate than mine. I was assuming a pretty small square spot. Still, I think we both agree the intensity has the potential to fry retinas.

    6. Re:God Schmod, I want my monkeyman! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Well, you *COULD* use the watts measurement, but for better accuracy, an overall umol/m^2/s-1 would be preferred.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:God Schmod, I want my monkeyman! by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      There is an important distinction, if you consider the beam going in your eye. The laser beam is spatially coherent, while sunlight is not. That means that when you look at the sun, not all of the light focuses to the same spot (i.e., an image of the sun is projected on your eye). If you were to look at this laser beam, the light would get focused down to a very small spot, only a few photoreceptors wide. This adds another (pulled out of thin air) ~1000x brighter.

  12. Not at all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should be awarded. Can you imagine how much time and effort it took to make such a small injection-mold?

    1. Re:Not at all... by Fembot · · Score: 4, Funny

      These are not the injection moldings you are looking for....

  13. What's next....? by Caviller · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can see it now....

    Scientist: We developed Hyperdrive!!
    George: Nope...I did...didn't you see my movie...geesh.

    I think George is heading down the path of the Dark Side....

    1. Re:What's next....? by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      In fact, the entire future of humanity, including all technological advances, was already patented by scifi writers decades ago.

    2. Re:What's next....? by AnonymousClown · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can see it now.... Scientist: We developed Hyperdrive!! George: Nope...I did...didn't you see my movie...geesh. I think George is heading down the path of the Dark Side....

      Um excuse me! I represent the Roddenberry estate and it's obvious that it is "Warp" drive NOT hyper drive. See you in court!

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    3. Re:What's next....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps ludicrous-drive?

    4. Re:What's next....? by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 1

      I can see it now.... Scientist: We developed Hyperdrive!! George: Nope...I did...didn't you see my movie...geesh. I think George is heading down the path of the Dark Side....

      Too late, didn't you see Star Wars prequals?

      --
      "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
    5. Re:What's next....? by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      In fact, the entire future of humanity, including all technological advances, was already patented by scifi writers decades ago.

      Well, as long as it's been patented at least two decades ago, we're safe...

    6. Re:What's next....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um excuse me! I represent the Roddenberry estate and it's obvious that it is "Warp" drive NOT hyper drive. See you in court!

      Well, in truth, there's prior art that even Roddenberry wouldn't deny.

      From the 1930s through to the 1950s, many stories in the science fiction magazines, Amazing Stories and Astounding Science Fiction introduced readers to hyperspace as a fourth spatial dimension. John Campbell's "Islands of Space," which first appeared in Amazing Stories in 1931, features an early reference to hyperspace.

      Hyperspace as a concept in Sci-Fi is old.

    7. Re:What's next....? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I think George is heading down the path of the Dark Side....

      Heading down? I guess you didn't see episodes 1-3. Clearly they were part of his dark plan to bring pain and suffering to the galaxy.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  14. It's all BS.. by Higaran · · Score: 1

    He is making an attempt to protect his copyright. It's BS but he has to have lawyers and other people that activaly search for products that look or are called anything similar to anything he holds a copyright on. Because if he doesn't appear to be protecting it then he loses it, and also a shit load of really really krappy knock off will come on the market, and I think that no one wants that.

    1. Re:It's all BS.. by sribe · · Score: 1

      That's not true at all of copyrights. It's trademarks you have to protect or lose.

    2. Re:It's all BS.. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Protecting copyrights is a good idea, though. If you don't protect your copyrights, and go to sue someone, you look more like a troll and have to fight that much harder. Probably not a big concern for Lucasarts with their fame and all, but valid nonetheless. Protecting copyrights (especially against a company like Wicked Lasers, who can be expected to respond with media attention and a Slashdot story) also serves as a nice deterrent against other potential infringers. It says loud and clear: "We're watching."

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:It's all BS.. by ricebowl · · Score: 1

      And it's only an appreciable concern in trademark law if the competing product is sold in the same market; Lucas sells movie-merch toys, Wicked Lasers appear to sell a functioning laser. I'm not sure how they could be considered to be 'in the same market,' really.

    4. Re:It's all BS.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      t's BS but he has to have lawyers and other people that activaly search for products that look or are called anything similar to anything he holds a copyright on.

      Jeez you are irresponsibly ignorant.

    5. Re:It's all BS.. by Higaran · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing as responsibly ignorant?

    6. Re:It's all BS.. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If they housed their functioning laser in something that looked like this, do you not think Paramount would go after them?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:It's all BS.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's ignorance, and then there's the irresponsibility of spreading your ignorance as if it were truth.

  15. Light Sabers != Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact is a light saber isn't a laser, I digress. Why isn't he suing all the clone "light saber" flashlights and all the plastic toys not authorized by Lucas. Pfff. I think he is seeing his DVD sales drop so he has to get his name out in the public again.

  16. George, George by mbone · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but I doubt Wicked Lasers is very worried.

    Movies get copyright protection, or trademark protection.

    Hardware gets patent protection.

    If George Lucas has a (design) patent on the light saber, it's expired by now.

    1. Re:George, George by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are technically correct, but a little more explanation is needed here. The aesthetic look of a functional object such as this would be protected by a design patent, not a copyright. George has the money to hire lawyers good enough to know this. So either: 1) the letter is a fake and a publicity stunt by Wicked Lasers; or 2) George is bluffing.

    2. Re:George, George by Twylite · · Score: 1

      "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 ..."

      17 USC.101: “Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

      I'm guessing they are making a tenuous assertion of sculptural copyright (probably a model), on the basis that the laser could be seen to include design elements reminiscent of a lightsaber that may not be strictly dictated by the functional requirements or utility of the laser.

      --
      i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
    3. Re:George, George by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      So they should make the laser look more like a laser rifle or laser pistol...

      ...oh... wait..

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  17. Legal Department by Itninja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I seriously doubt 'George Lucas' had anything to do with this. It's possible he's not even aware of it. This was done by the Lucasfilm Ltd legal department. George doesn't exactly engage in day-to-day operations....he has 'people' for that.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Legal Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is probably something HE would do anyway, he is just like that.
      Lucas has turned in to one hell of a twisted person over the years.

    2. Re:Legal Department by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt 'George Lucas' had anything to do with this. It's possible he's not even aware of it. This was done by the Lucasfilm Ltd legal department. George doesn't exactly engage in day-to-day operations....he has 'people' for that.

      I'm sure you're right, but when a person hires people to represent him, then they represent him. I.e., if this isn't what he wants done then George Lucas sucks at employing people.

      --
      -Dave
    3. Re:Legal Department by Itninja · · Score: 1

      I imagine he doesn't hire people (or hasn't in many, many years). If the company was called 'Movies Ltd' and didn't bare Lucas' name, this wouldn't have even made Slashdot....

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    4. Re:Legal Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George's people have people, and those people have assistants. AND his people's people's assistants make more money than you do.

    5. Re:Legal Department by rarrar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is purely a CYA move on the part of his legal dept. If some kid "burns his eye out" playing with a "lightsaber," and the lawsuits start a-flying - LucasFilm has set precedent by warning the manufacturer of the danger, and by disavowing any affiliation with them.

    6. Re:Legal Department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it would. The fact that a company is being threatened with legal action because they make a nifty laser device that happens to look a bit like a light sabre makes it Slashdot worthy in itself.

  18. Wow... by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If he succeeds, then REAL scifi authors could have a field day. No more helicopters, hovercraft, or zillions of other inventions they wrote about without getting their permission first...

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    1. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would include all the money that George's billion dollar franchise has made. It's not like he invented the idea of flying cities, hovercraft, space stations, or 'deathsticks'.

    2. Re:Wow... by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      This is not good. The Philip K Dick estate is going to own half the known world.

    3. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and leonardo da vinci estate the other half

    4. Re:Wow... by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Just wait until the Mesopotamia estate catches up on them for inventing writing

    5. Re:Wow... by meow27 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      These lightsabers are toys. Not real inventions.

      The concept of this non-functioning object is taken from the movie....

      Helicopters, communication devices, and other thought of ideas became inventions that could not really be disputed. It's because those inventions were a concept the -author could not make- into reality

      I'm pretty sure george lucas could have financed and made the same/similar toys if he felt like it.

      Now I'm not saying that i agree with this action. Consider it like this: you have to pay the owner of the "Gundam" name in order to call a humanoid robot machine a "Gundam" the same probably is going to be argued with these lightsaber toys.

      As stated in the article, the company has made similar devices before. Only this time it was intended to look like a lightsaber.

    6. Re:Wow... by TubeSteak · · Score: 0, Troll

      If he succeeds, then REAL scifi authors could have a field day. No more helicopters, hovercraft, or zillions of other inventions they wrote about without getting their permission first...

      Wicked Lasers designed their laser to look like a lightsaber.
      Lucas owns the trademark on the lightsaber name and look.
      Lucas sues to protect his trademark.

      This will somehow lead to the downfall of civilization as "REAL scifi authors" attempt to enforce trademarks they do not have.
      Your +4 Insightful shames us all.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? I want my fucking replicant girl. And the "fucking" wasn't metaphorical ;-)

    8. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he succeeds, then REAL scifi authors could have a field day. No more helicopters, hovercraft, or zillions of other inventions they wrote about without getting their permission first...

      You may have not noticed, but that's not an actual lightsaber. Just saying.

    9. Re:Wow... by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >These lightsabers are toys. Not real inventions.

      No they bloody well aren't. The article clearly states that these are fully functional portable laser devices - intended primarily for industrial and military use.
      In fact the amount of people buying them for non-industrial use has led the company to modify them and ship them with significant extra safety features to prevent accidents from people buying them as novelties.

      >The concept of this non-functioning object is taken from the movie....

      No, it is not. The movie has a device in it which violates the current laws of physics. Light that only travels a short distance then stops, cuts through metal but cannot move through OTHER light of the same kind...
      While THIS device is cutting laser, much like the ones used for surgery or industrial machining. The difference is only that this device is portable.

      >Helicopters, communication devices, and other thought of ideas became inventions that could not really be disputed. It's because >those inventions were a concept the -author could not make- into reality

      As pointed out above, the concept of a lightsaber cannot be made into reality - it violates every known law of physics so short of a radical new discovery or something "like light" which ISN'T - it's NEVER going to exist. Therefore no functional real world device can possibly be said to be based on it.

      >I'm pretty sure george lucas could have financed and made the same/similar toys if he felt like it.

      He does. This is not a toy.

      >Now I'm not saying that i agree with this action. Consider it like this: you have to pay the owner of the "Gundam" name in order >to call a humanoid robot machine a "Gundam" the same probably is going to be argued with these lightsaber toys.

      That's trademark law - and it doesn't exist to protect companies (another reason "ip" is a bad term) it exists to protect consumers - so that when I by a defy fridge I can be reasonably sure it's not a cheap knock-off but the real thing I'm paying a premium for.

      >As stated in the article, the company has made similar devices before. Only this time it was intended to look like a lightsaber.

      How the hell did you manage to READ the article yet miss all the other actual FACTS in it ? Like that the device is not a toy, was not itended to "look like a lightsaber", and was never intended to be sold to the general public - so much so in fact that when hte public started to buy them they had to ALTER the design to make it safe ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:Wow... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Also a trademark has to specify what it's for. You can't go claiming vaguely similar shit after the fact, or stuff that happens to look like yours but does something else.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:Wow... by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>If he succeeds, then REAL scifi authors could have a field day. No more helicopters, hovercraft, or zillions of other inventions they wrote about without getting their permission first...

      >Wicked Lasers designed their laser to look like a lightsaber.
      They say they didn't - so I guess until a judge says whose right it's just your word against theirs.

      >Lucas owns the trademark on the lightsaber name and look.
      So ? Trademark law only applies within similar field. This is not a movie prop, it's not a toy and it's not even a sword-like weapon. It's an industrial cutting laser. That is a radically different market. What's next, will you suggest the manufacturers of Linux Brand Tile Soap (yes it exists, and there are about a dosen other products with the name) get to sue Linus Torvalds ?

      >Lucas sues to protect his trademark.
      Trademark law doesn't apply - and the letter never mentions it anyway, it clearly states that it's a copyright letter. Until they prove that a real utility device can violate the copyright of a fictional device with a completely different purpose - their letter is just a threaten-them-and-hope-they-back-down.

      >This will somehow lead to the downfall of civilization as "REAL scifi authors" attempt to enforce trademarks they do not have.
      Your +4 Insightful shames us all.

      Well it certainly appears that this is how George Lucas thinks it should work, don't fault the GP for pointing this out.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:Wow... by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 1

      I remember a story but could just be a rumor but here it is. They guy who invented the waterbed had his patent rejected. The reason that was given was that the design was already in the public domain because it had already been published in complete detail. The book was Strange in a Strange land by R. Heinlein.

      So maybe, just maybe, it would be possible to claim the same thing with all those inventions and save the world from such IP nonsense.

      --
      "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
    13. Re:Wow... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      In other news, Lucasarts trademarks "futuristic devices, or devices which appear to be futuristic, or which may be representative of science-fictional devices".

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then Thompson (RCA) could sue Apple over the iPhone name? Keanu needed a "Thompson iPhone" in Johnny Mnemonic, back in 1995.

  19. Probably unimportant by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm agreeing with the Wicked Lasers CEO:

    "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."

    It's just a laser for now, but next month when Lucasfilm sues a company making unlicensed life-size R2D2 statues, their lawyers can claim they've been actively protecting their copyrights and trademarks, which easily cuts off the biggest defenses. It's all part of the game.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Probably unimportant by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Well. One problem. Have you reviewed the actual Wicked laser in question? It's pretty clear to me that the design is completely intended to look like a Light Saber.

      C//

    2. Re:Probably unimportant by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      The C&D letter, as quoted by CNN at least, cites copyright law, not trademark law.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    3. Re:Probably unimportant by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      > unlicensed life-size R2D2 statues

      Pardon me, but I'm having just a little bit of cognitive dissonance over matching "life-sized" to something that not only was never alive in its original context, but was actually fictional. "One to one scale with the original prop", that I have no problem with.

    4. Re:Probably unimportant by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      It looks like a big laser pointer, designed to not slide out of someone's hand. I have a travel coffee mug that looks pretty similar, albeit with a larger diameter.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  20. TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    While I think this is heavy handed of Lucasfilm Ltd, I looked up the actual product on their website. The pic in TFA is rather close up and doesn't truly show how close this laser resembles a lightsaber. Check out the other pics here: http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html

    As much as I hate to admit it, it does look way too similar to a lightsaber.

    1. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Gregour · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's not that it's a laser than can be used as a weapon. It's that the case looks exactly like a lightsaber. All they have to do is change the case design a bit and the C&D request will go away.

    2. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I think this is heavy handed of Lucasfilm Ltd, I looked up the actual product on their website. The pic in TFA is rather close up and doesn't truly show how close this laser resembles a lightsaber. Check out the other pics here: http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html

      As much as I hate to admit it, it does look way too similar to a lightsaber.

      So does a Graflex flash tube.

    3. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by it0 · · Score: 1

      A flashlight also looks similar to a lightsaber!

      Nowhere on the site or product is a reference to star wars.

      Perhaps he should sue the cigarette companies for ripping off his death sticks!

    4. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate to admit it, it does look way too similar to a lightsaber.

      And a lightsaber looks way too close to a Regallis Engineering FastTurn-3 Hydrospanner. Lucas better watch out or else a galaxy-spanning company with a long history is going to sue (or maybe start a trade embargo).

    5. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just generally looking like a light saber isn't enough to invoke copyright. For a patent or trademark claim that might be enough, but TFA specifically mentioned copyright.
      For copyright to apply, it would have to look strikingly similar to a specific lightsaber design published by Lucas. If it does (I don't know), then Lucas is in his right.

    6. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      A flashlight doesn't have purely cosmetic features that make it look more like a lightsaber. Gotta say that I'm siding with Lucasarts on this one. They were clearly trying to convey a sense of "lightsaber" with the design.

    7. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. Those are sexy marketing shots. Maybe they recognized the resemblance, maybe they didn't and just wanted to make it look cool. It's a hand held laser - by definition it is going to share attributes with other hand held light-emitting devices. Watch the video on the same page, and it's rather obvious that in actual use it's nothing like a light saber. In fact, it's much more similar to a laser pointer both in form and function. I don't really see a case here.

    8. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, I could argue that an improperly designed and marketed flashlight/torch could also be deemed to resemble a light saber. After all, it is a small cylinder of metal with a flare on one end (a la the original movies) that projects a beam of light which, under certain conditions and with the proper color filters, could create a visible thick beam of light.

    9. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, which particular lightsaber, as depicted in his copyrighted works, does this one look like? Or can he just claim copyright on any metallic tube with bits on and a light at one end for the rest of eternity?

    10. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      While I think this is heavy handed of Lucasfilm Ltd, I looked up the actual product on their website. The pic in TFA is rather close up and doesn't truly show how close this laser resembles a lightsaber. Check out the other pics here: http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html

      As much as I hate to admit it, it does look way too similar to a lightsaber.

      Agreed, if that pic is legit then it does look a lot like one.

      Part of me says "so what." Your options for something portable are somewhat limited...

      • Either go with a gun-shaped device, even something sci-fi where it's an isoceles triangle and you hold the short end.
      • Or you go with some sort of flash light device. But not TOO much like a flash light, else you pick up the wrong tool in a power outage and screw up someone's retina.

      If a wand device, for anything expensive you probably want something with a good solid grip and construction so you don't drop/break the thing. Dropping a $50 laser pointer is no big deal, they're light and simple. Something more complex, you probably want that extra heft.

      Really, all Lucas had was a cool looking hilt that shot a beam of light. A stylized flash light. Until the prequels, there were only 3 or 4 distinct models of handles. Who knows how many there are now (besides the BMF).

      On the other hand, yeh the whole picture does resemble one. If the thing was called a "photon sword" or something the lawyers would probably mess their pants.

    11. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate to admit it, it does look way too similar to a lightsaber.

      So? Does LucasFilm have a Design Patent on a functioning Light Saber and not just a toy Light Saber? They serve different purposes and therefore cannot create confusion. I understand that LucasFilms owns a Trademark on Light Saber which is why Wicked Lasers can't call it that (and they don't).

      On a side note: they aren't very similar to any of the Light Saber replicas I've seen, they are missing quite a bit of extra hardware sticking out the sides. These are way more sleek than a light saber

    12. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      It looks similar because making something look futuristic involves adding heatsink-looking elements and rings around the body in order to make it look more complex. Compare German pistols to Marvin the Martian's or Buck Roger's ray gun. Now compare a normal laser pointer or flashlight to the Artic Pro. It's been a common stylistic approach for much longer than Lucas has been around. Unless it matches one of the known lightsabers from the movie and is advertised as one, this claim is BS.

    13. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what IS a lightsaber? Concept art from pre-production original trilogy? The prop made? The name? The idea of a hand-held laser? What is the exact infringement here?

      I find this entire chain of reasoning to be incredibly tenuous. A lightsaber does NOT EXIST in tangible form to be infringed upon. Furthermore, WickedLasers is not describing the product as a 'Lightsaber', as you show by your link to the 'Spyder III Pro'. If this goes through, George Lucas can now sue me for my maglite on the same shaky ground. That is fucking ridiculous.

    14. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by noidentity · · Score: 2, Informative

      As much as I hate to admit it, it does look way too similar to a lightsaber.

      Yeah, but it's not an actual lightsaber, which is what George Lucas patented and sells. Once you enable the blade, the difference is very clear; this laser can cause blidness, but a George Lucas's lightsaber can cut a man in half. He doesn't want buyers feeling cheated when they find out it's just a dinky laser, thinking the real lightsaber was just a hoax.

    15. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by serialband · · Score: 1

      It looks like a fancy flashlight, just as the light sabers looked like fancy flashlights.

    16. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Gregour · · Score: 1

      Does this look like a blaster from Star Wars? Or this? They have heatsink-looking elements and rings, but they would never be confused for a blaster from the Star Wars movies.

      There's a difference between adding heatsink-looking elements and rings to a laser's case, and making the style of the case match that of a lightsaber.

    17. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't many ways you can create a portable laser. The fins on it are for heat sinking. It has to be round to grab it. The switches and knobs are needed to control it. This is definitely over extending any kind of IP or trademark protection. Nowhere on their website or marketing materials do you see any mention or even hints to anything related to lucasfilm (saber, etc).

    18. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That looks nothing at all like a lightsaber. It is clearly High Guard lance, you insensitive clod!

    19. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by halber_mensch · · Score: 1

      While I think this is heavy handed of Lucasfilm Ltd, I looked up the actual product on their website. The pic in TFA is rather close up and doesn't truly show how close this laser resembles a lightsaber. Check out the other pics here: http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html

      As much as I hate to admit it, it does look way too similar to a lightsaber.

      I dunno, it sort of looks like a flashlight to me. And lightsabers look like flashlights too. That's why twelve year olds have been having "lightsaber battles" with flashlights for the past 30 years. Just because they both look like the same duck doesn't mean the first aper has been aped. You can take just about any cylindrically shaped object with a few surface projections and say it looks like a lightsaber hilt, because the lightsaber hilt is vague and simple. It would be one thing if they were marking these thinks as "Space Battle Light Blazers" or something even remotely close to any Lucasfilm owned trademarks, but as it is marketed as the spyder III pro arctic laser this is just ridiculous trolling. Kingman Group would, however, have a better shot at suing over use of the name Spyder.

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
    20. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it also looks a lot like a number of Surefire flashlights too.

    21. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yea, and mysteriously enough there were some flashlights in the late 60s and 70s that resembled the light saber too ...

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's roughly cylindrical and light comes out of one end. But then, the same's true for a flashlight.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at some pictures of light sabres from the films. It may be kind of similar, in sort of the same way that KDE is similar to Windows, but it isn't a direct rip-off. That is, not similar enough to infringe on any copyrights or trademark.

    24. Re:TFA contains a horrible pic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes no difference. Even if they made an *actual* thing that looks like a lightsaber, sounds like a lightsaber, and slices like a lightsaber, they *still* wouldn't have a case.

      It is *possible* they might have a case if they *called* it a "lightsaber" and marketed it as such.

  21. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Someone should send a C&D to Lucas for acting like an ass. There was prior art on that a loooong time ago.

    1. Re:Prior Art by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Someone should send a C&D to Lucas for acting like an ass. There was prior art on that a loooong time ago.

      Yeah but Shakespeare is dead so I don't think he'll be enforcing Bottom from "A midsummer night's tale" as an invention here....

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  22. Seriously? by Haffner · · Score: 1
    The day that someone designs a laser that goes a fixed distance and stops, creates an opaque beam, and is capable of reflecting other light is the day that I'll accept George's copyright claim. Sadly, he will be able to keep lawyers on retainer that long. Sorry, great*10 grandchildren.

    Also, sorry about the environment. We screwed that up too.

    --
    "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
    1. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because no one would ever think to compare this laser with an actual product...

      http://gizmodo.com/5576408/the-arctic-spyder-iii-lightsaber-laser-in-action

      http://www.fastcompany.com/1662279/lasers-blue-handheld-spyder-iii-retina-damage-science-airports

      http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/16/working-lightsaber-the-most-dangerous-laser-ever-created/

    2. Re:Seriously? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Going for a fixed distance is easy, other things are not. For the fixed distance, all you need is a powerful enough infrared laser (can be also visible or UV), and a vibrating focusing system that sweeps the focus along a linear path of some length. Along that path, you get a column of ionized air. That due to dielectric breakdown induced by high enough electromagnetic field strength from the focused laser.

      The biggest issue is really cooling the laser and possibly optics, one could fit a rechargeable power source, the laser and the focuser into a largish lightsaber-style case using today's tech. But you will need coolant and gas hoses going from that to your backpack, and the backpack will have a CO2 bottle, a motorcycle-sized radiator and a fan. Not very sexy I'd say.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    3. Re:Seriously? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The light doesn't stop, that'd just be ridiculous! It turns around and goes back to the handle, otherwise you couldn't use it left-handed. Or in the Southern hemisphere, I forget which.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. TV has too much influence on some people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George Lucas thinks that bulky, handheld lasers shouldn't be produced because they are his intellectual property.

    George Lucas needs to understand that there is a difference between fantasy and reality.

  24. Lucas F*&^ OFF ! by maxrate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's like Paramount tell apple to stop making the iPad because it looks like the PADD's on the Star Trek series

    1. Re:Lucas F*&^ OFF ! by cjnichol · · Score: 1

      Right... the iPad looks nothing like the PADDs. The kindle on the other hand looks much more similar to a PADD. Before reading the full summary, I went to http://www.wickedlasers.com/ to take a look. First thing that came to mind when I saw the Arctic series: "Lightsaber"

    2. Re:Lucas F*&^ OFF ! by confused+one · · Score: 1

      I'm sure some lawyer at Paramount has considered it...

    3. Re:Lucas F*&^ OFF ! by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of every single flip phone vs the original series communicators - especially the fancy clear top flip phones. Heck, I see tons of people with Boost mobile even using them like communicators (they don't put it to their ear, they crank up the volume and hold it in front of them).

    4. Re:Lucas F*&^ OFF ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tablet computing device had existed as described and prototyped prior art well before ST:NG, but that is beside the point;
      the iPad is not easily capable of permanently blinding people in milliseconds with an optical "point blank" range of 400 yards.

      I see LucasFilm being more concerned with their Light Sabre brand becoming associated with a toy-like looking device that is capable of serious bodily and property harm. It is not hard to envision the inevitable lawsuit that occurs against them, after some thirty-something Man Child leaves his WickedLaser(tm) LightSabre-like toy out next to the rest of his Star Wars collection, and while family is visiting, one or more young relatives sneak into his room, makes off with the 'toy' and ends up giving themselve(s) and a few of the neighborhood kids some discount unLasik procedures.

  25. Pretty telling... by Robotron23 · · Score: 2

    Isn't it nice to see Lucas as lawsuit-happy as ever some 33 years after the launch of his massively successful franchise? The amounts of legal disputes, some so petty as to beggar belief, that George Lucas has launched over the decades illustrate more about the man himself than about any significant precedent or legal milestone. Yes he's won lawsuits; but there's a difference between legally sound and ethically sound.

    Great White Snark has a short list of five of Lucas's most silly qualms which in the final analysis basically attack inspiration itself. Despite the fact there's a still-debated laundry list of inspiration for Star Wars, much of which he's acknowledged in straight-faced affable fashion in interviews over the years.

    I'd have thought by now he'd started to mellow with age, or perhaps devoted more time to helping the world in general like certain other elder-geeks on the globe. Apparently not.

  26. Did he patent it? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    I guess he didn't patent it, probably becuase he didn't have the slightest idea how it could work.
    (I am refering to the feature that lets you swordfight with them, and also block incoming laser blasts.

    Anyway the most he can claim ownership to is the name.

    Say did he ever sue Ronald Reagan over the Star Wars strategic defense initiative?

    1. Re:Did he patent it? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0

      It is not about patents or copyrights. It is about the trademark on the term "lightsaber", and that is what the C&D says: Call it something else or stop making it.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Did he patent it? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes he did. For using the name Star Wars. He was right to do so.
      Clarification:
      The Media called it 'Star Wars' and it was Perle who convinced Reagan to adopt it.

      Perle is also one of the primary person who laid the foundation and implement the world of fear we live in. Seriously, look it up.

      In this case, he is suing over the look. Not that he is right to do so in this case.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Did he patent it? by cslax · · Score: 1

      Fine. Lightsword. Moving on. Still too similar? Sword of light. Everyone will still make the mental jump.

    4. Re:Did he patent it? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Which is especially interesting because Wicked Lasers never used the term "Lightsaber" at all. Nor did they imply in any way that this was anything like a lightsaber. It's an industrial-grade laser tool. They market it as such.

      The media did make the comparison, because it's cool and the unit vaguely resembles a lightsaber in that it's a large handheld cylinder that emits some form of light energy from one end.

      What other device does that remind you of? Oh, yeah, a flashlight. Why isn't Lucasfilms suing all flashlight manufacturers? Because the media doesn't make stupid comparisons between flashlights and lightsabers. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Lucas himself originally conceived of the lightsaber by combining the concepts of a sword and a flashlight, both commonly available items at the time.

      Now, admittedly, the Wicked Laser unit does have grippy bits that make it look a bit more bit like some lightsaber handles from the earlier movies, but anything that prevents it from being a perfect cylinder might. I seem to recall from the movies that lightsabers are built by the Jedi who uses them and/or handed down, not mass manufactured, and each one is unique. I also seem to recall a few lightsabers that looked almost exactly like the 3-cell Mag light I have at home. Some have more grippy bits sticking out here and there, but pretty much any handheld cylindrical object between about 8 and 18 inches long (with or without stuff glued to it) will resemble one of the dozens of lightsaber prop designs Lucasarts has used in the Star Wars franchise over the years.

      Lucasarts should be suing media sites for making the comparison, not Wicked Lasers. Or they could just do a simple press release saying that lasers are potentially dangerous tools and call the media to task for comparing an industrial tool to a fantasy weapon that is frequently sold as a toy, and reminding people not to confuse the two when choosing age-appropriate toys for their offspring.

      Wicked Lasers does not appear to have "copied" anything other than the form factor of the humble flashlight, which is a very logical design to copy. They added grippy bits, but that's a equally logical design choice - it's a high-powered laser. You don't want it slipping out of your hand when the business end is lit up. Grippy bits are your friends. The handle may also get pretty warm with all the current that laser demands, so grippy bits may also be a good separation between the heat sink (cylinder) and the bit your hand comes in contact with (grippy bits).

      What's next? Will Lucasarts sue open-ended wrench companies when some media wag observes that the Millenium Falcon looks a whole lot like an open-ended wrench with the handle ground off?

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    5. Re:Did he patent it? by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

      As already stated, the manufacturer did not call it a light saber - blog sites did. So what you are saying is if you create a web page that is your "home on the web" and I blog about it can call it your "iPad", then Apple could sue you for infringement and make you take down your web site? If anything, they can try to prove the manufacturer intentionally made the object to look like a light saber from the movie in order to use the movie's popularity to sell the product. However, if that is the case, then there are a whole lot of products in violation.

    6. Re:Did he patent it? by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is not about patents or copyrights. It is about the trademark on the term "lightsaber", and that is what the C&D says: Call it something else or stop making it.

      Ehem...

      The cease-and-desist letter doesn't accuse Wicked of using the term "lightsaber" in its marketing -- which Liu said is primarily aimed at industrial, military and research customers.

      While your position makes logical sense, I regret to inform you that it doesn't match reality...

  27. I have to say it but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The product is marketed as a real-life light saber. Now like it or not, they are cashing in on Star-Wars, They people who made it should have asked permission first. I am pro-OSS also, I work at an OSS firm, but I can tell IP theft when I see it.

    1. Re:I have to say it but by Br00se · · Score: 1

      Actually it's not. According to the story, they make no mention of any Star Wars property. Third parties have gotten on the bandwagon and made comparisons, but not the manufacturer.

      Besides, the props in the movies were just modified Graflex flash guns. I don't know if Lucas licensed those are not, but his designs are far or original.

    2. Re:I have to say it but by icebraining · · Score: 1

      IP on what? The name? Nope. The process on how it works? Nope.

      The only thing they can protect is the design, but that's not only obvious (it's a simple handle, not exactly extraordinary work) as design patents only last for 14 years, so any patent would have long expired.

  28. Unicorn Meat by the_one_wesp · · Score: 1

    The motive here seems to be similar to that of the NPB's (National Pork Board) C&D against ThinkGeek. Everything is hunky-dory as long as the public isn't creating a perceived violation of copyright/trademark.

    Not knowing much about copyright/trademark laws, is that even a valid case against the manufacturer/retailer? "Oh, we know you're(the manufacturer/retailer) not openly violating our trademark, but the consumer public is connecting your brand to our brand, so we're gonna sue if you don't stop."

    1. Re:Unicorn Meat by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      You can sue for the public connecting two brands if you can show it was intentional. Obviously, if you use a very similar mark, you can be sued, even if technically it's not "the same" mark. In this case, though they do not call it a lightsaber, its made to look exactly like one (the picture in TFA is intentionally cropped to cut off most of the handle, so you can't see how similar they are). So, they MAY have a case. But it's quite weak, in my non-expert opinion.

      In general, the idea that what connections the consumer makes is irrelevant (except in cases of brand confusion). For example, say I invent an entirely new kind of device, that's never been seen or imagined before! I patent it and sell it under some unique and distinctive tradename. Now, in 14 years or whatever, my patent is expired and others can sell the same product. If I was allowed to say "People think of my product when they see yours, so you violated my trademark even though you never used it!" then no competition would EVER be allowed, and I'd have an eternal monopoly past the duration of the patents, which is an incredibly non-desirable result.

      However, the question is, what if they're not just making something similar, what if it's designed to look exactly like the fairly-distinctive design I used, well beyond the shape required for the function? It even has the cool fins! Well, that's different. They can't control that people think of my tradename because of the function and basic form, but they can control it by not copy&pasting the design exactly down to the angstrom. However, aesthetic design elements of a functional device are the realm of design patents. So again, if the patents are all expired now, using trademark in this manner would be using trademark to make a de facto extension of a monopoly right that has, by law, already expired. So, while I'm not a judge, it would be absurd to allow such a thing.

      On the other hand, the C&D letter mentions suing over copyright, not trademark. They might have a chance. Copyright can be used to protect the creative design of a decorative or ornamental object. Since the lightsaber props don't do anything but sit there and look pretty, they are ornamental objects, and their design is protected by copyright law. As mentioned, the pictures of the laser on their site (though not in TFA) look very similar, so Lucas Flims would have a pretty good case. (Note that although the laser itself IS functional, it's a function object put inside an ornamental shell. If you make a mold of an artist's statue, and use it to make lamps, that's a copyright violation, even though YOUR thing is a functional object).

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  29. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ditch the current handle design and replace it with a proper shark mounting bracket.

  30. Interesting Conundrum by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Seems like George set himself up into a Minority Report catch-22... if this laser CAN cut him in half, then he dies but wins his point that this laser infringes on his copyright. If it cannot cut him, then he lives but loses his point.

    1. Re:Interesting Conundrum by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      "You cannot win, George. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  31. Short memory? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It wasn't that long ago that the lasers from this very same company were featured on the slashdot front page. While the company doesn't make any Star Wars references themselves, the slashdot write-up certainly did.

    Here's the Slashdot article "Set Free Your Inner Jedi (Or Pyro)". It was posted June 14 - less than a month ago today. I'm surprised the intrepid Slashdot editors didn't remember running it while writing up this summary.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Short memory? by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      I sure remembered. My first thought was "Shit, I hope they don't stop selling them, I still haven't had the spare scratch to get one yet!" It's pretty high on my list of "awesome shit to waste money on."

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Short memory? by dissy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That looks like Slashdot is guilty of the crime here, as that editor misrepresented Wicked Lasers product in a trademark infringing way. Wicked Laser made no such statement.

      It's funny because Lucas is even quoted as admitting this fact in the article!

      He knows it is gizmodo and the other blogs misrepresenting the product, but he still doesn't want to sue the ones doing the wrong, just another company that never once made such a comparison.

      Lucas is still a dick however.

    3. Re:Short memory? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It wasn't that long ago that the lasers from this very same company were featured on the slashdot front page. While the company doesn't make any Star Wars references themselves, the slashdot write-up certainly did.

      Since when does a manufacturer have responsibility for the idiocy of third parties?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Short memory? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      It wasn't that long ago that the lasers from this very same company were featured on the slashdot front page. While the company doesn't make any Star Wars references themselves, the slashdot write-up certainly did.

      Since when does a manufacturer have responsibility for the idiocy of third parties?

      They don't. I never said they did, either. Rather I was pointing out that slashdot contributed (very recently) to the problem, and seems to have forgotten that simple fact. Instead they are looking the other way and trying to pin the blame on a hollywood director.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    5. Re:Short memory? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And I'm pointing out that there is no problem. If I, being totally unconnected with the car industry in any way shape or form, start referring to Chevrolets as BMWs that isn't going to cause anyone in Detroit to lose sleep.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  32. Thank you to Gene Roddenberry by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

    for not being a douche when Motorola released the StarTAC.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    1. Re:Thank you to Gene Roddenberry by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Roddenberry dead at the time?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Thank you to Gene Roddenberry by mrsurb · · Score: 1

      He's dead, Jim.

    3. Re:Thank you to Gene Roddenberry by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      Damn, you're right. My bad.

      Thank you to Majel for not being a douche!

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    4. Re:Thank you to Gene Roddenberry by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      Or when apple released the iPad which is functionally the same as the data pads in TNG.

    5. Re:Thank you to Gene Roddenberry by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Roddenberry dead at the time?

      Okay, FINE...

      for not being a zombie douche...

      Better?

    6. Re:Thank you to Gene Roddenberry by DrCForbin · · Score: 1

      Except the PADD wasn't tied to AT&T And you could configure the PADD the way you wanted it ... (all user interfaces were customizable per the ST:TNG Tech Manual) And you could put an isolinear optical chip in it to transfer data .. And did anybody else ever notice that people had piles of PADD's on their desks? Did that mean the PADD didn't multitask? ok.. I'm a Trek geek .. with friends who worked on all of the shows in the art and design departments Try this https://synthesize.us/LCARS_PADD?title=LCARS_PADD Nokia's Internet Tablet OS 2008

  33. It used to be... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It used to be that Science Fiction authors and movie makers used to -like- the fact that their predictions came true because it showed that they made good predictions... Imagine how much H.G. Wells would be thrilled if someone made a working time machine based on his book, something tells me that he wouldn't send a C&D letter because they "stole" his idea, instead he'd be happy that he could be the inspiration for such a great idea.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:It used to be... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      something tells me that he wouldn't send a C&D letter because they "stole" his idea, instead he'd be happy that he could be the inspiration for such a great idea.

      Yeah, it's not like Arthur C. Clarke tried to sue when someone actually put up a communications satellite.

      Sometimes being prescient is just way cooler.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:It used to be... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      But Lucas is not and has never been a SF writer, other than in the most superficial way (here's some ideas and a crude script, you guys go storyboard it, and you other guys go ghost-write it). I'd say his real bent is marketing.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:It used to be... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Except, this isn't a working lightsaber. It's a laser.

    4. Re:It used to be... by cpghost · · Score: 1

      H.G. Wells' imagination wasn't on par, considering the future that we have now. His shady Morlocks should've been the hordes of IP-lawyers that are feeding on and eating a (largely) unsuspecting population.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    5. Re:It used to be... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Of course if someone did invent a working time machine, they could travel back in time and kick Wells' grandfather in the 'nads.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  34. Every male born before 1977... by SilasMortimer · · Score: 1

    ...should send Lucas a cease and desist order to stop selling lightsabre-like merchandise, claiming unlawful use of likeness.

    Just sayin'.

    --
    Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
  35. Trademark not copyright. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0

    This is a trademark issue with the name "lightsaber". It is not a copyright issue at all.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:Trademark not copyright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to TFA:
      "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 ... ,"

    2. Re:Trademark not copyright. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      This is a trademark issue with the name "lightsaber".

      A trademark only applies to, well trade.

      Unless Lucas has been selling Light Saber (TM) Brand Laser Swords, this is not even remotely a trademark issue. It's a different domain altogether. Coca Cola is a trademark. Light saber is, at best, descriptive. The fact that this is a tube with fins on it is likely irrelevant too.

      A prop in a movie is not the same as a brand, and it isn't used the same way, and doesn't enjoy the same protections. Heck, if someone made a real "laser sword", Lucas would have no leg to stand on either.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Trademark not copyright. by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      No it's not. First, they never use the word "lightsaber" so it would be an incredibly hard win in court to sue somebody for making others THINK of a trademarked name. Second, TFA quotes the C&D letter, which says that since a lightsaber appeared in their films, building one is a derivative work and subject to copyright law. If they are actually threatening over Trademark, it means CNN put false quotes in their article for some mysterious reason.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    4. Re:Trademark not copyright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a trademark issue with the name "lightsaber".

      If that was the case I'd expect the word to appear on the company's website. It does not.

  36. The hell? by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 1

    This looks like something straight from the onion, but it's sadly a real story *sigh*

    1. Re:The hell? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      This looks like something straight from the onion, but it's sadly a real story *sigh*

      In case you haven't noticed, that's why the Onion is so damned funny. Because, at any given time, life is in danger of imitating parody. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  37. Re:He is not threatening them over the laser desig by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's more like lawyers realize they can sound busy and make extra money by thinking that you have to sue anything remotely similar.

  38. Next problem... by merichards · · Score: 1

    Let's just hope Arthur C Clarke's estate doesn't sue everyone silly for geostationary orbits, or all those fancy mobiles are going to be switched off...

  39. Wicked Lasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have a bad reputation on their own. They produce the worst lasers known to man and sell them for humongous prices. Really, most of them break after a month or so or are even DOA. Only Dragonlasers comes close to them in terms of bad reputation.

  40. Don't be stupid by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

    this has NOTHING to do with it being a laser. He claims the shape of the body was built to resemble a light saber handle.

    Functioning has nothing to do with it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Don't be stupid by NNKK · · Score: 1

      ... Yeah, a round handle on a weapon-like object, a highly original thought... Oh WAIT!

    2. Re:Don't be stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      this has NOTHING to do with it being a laser. He claims the shape of the body was built to resemble a light saber handle.

      A headline from tech blog Gizmodo called the device "a real life lightsaber." The Daily Tech blog called it "perhaps the first consumer laser weapon" and said it "comes in sleek packaging that looks, unsurprisingly like a lightsaber."

      "These references make it clear that the public is being led to believe that the Pro Arctic Laser is an official lightsaber device and/or copied from our design," the Lucasfilm letter said.

      He is quoted as saying he's upset at the fact other people are misrepresenting Wicked Lasers product. Not that it is actually representative of anything. His only issues seem to be with the fact people are lead to believe Wicked Lasers product is official, and even admits it is the other blogs doing.

      It would be like me posting that you have blue skin, and the blue man group suing YOU for what I said.

    3. Re:Don't be stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be like me posting that you have blue skin, and the blue man group suing YOU for what I said.

      I have cyan skin, you insensitive clod!

  41. In other news today... by Pollux · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientists ceased work on developing a time machine that fits inside a car.

    "When we first started development, we had our eyes set on a Camaro," said project manager and lead scientist Phuc Mi. "There aren't too many modern cars that still have enough space both under the hood to fit the fusion reactor necessary to generate the 2.19 GW of power needed to feed the fluidic transistor needed to initiate time travel. But, Michael Bay got wind of our project and, well, let's just say we gutted the Camaro and borrowed someone's Mustang instead. But with this second cease-and-desist letter from Steven Spielberg, we can't keep fighting lawyers! We have much better odds predicting where lightning will strike next than beating them in court!"

    1. Re:In other news today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only needs 1.21 GW you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:In other news today... by Pollux · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was thinking to write "1.21 GW" and "flux capacitor", but I also didn't want to get sued.

    3. Re:In other news today... by karcirate · · Score: 1

      fluidic transistor

      I think you meant flux capacitor.

    4. Re:In other news today... by mk2mark · · Score: 1

      What about something less mainstream? I heard there was some dude called John Delorean who had a brief foray into building sports cars in Ireland during the 80's - surely something this obscure would fit the bill?

  42. Shaky legal ground, but I can see Lucasfilm's side by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    It falls plumb between trademark and copyright stools, but take a look at the uncropped picture of the laser. Ask 12 good men and true if it's not blindingly (ho ho) obvious that this device has been deliberately designed to look like a lightsaber, and I think you'll get an answer in the affirmative.

    Whether that's actionable or not is a more nuanced question, but can we please be honest about the design remit at work here. This is a lightsaber clone, with enough small differences that they can make a fight of it, grabbing more publicity all the way.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  43. Well... by lymond01 · · Score: 1

    It DOES look a lot like a light saber handle, which is their problem. That being said, the headline suggests that LucasFilm is "threatening legal action if it doesn't change its Pro Arctic Laser series". I'm thinking "change" likely means "pay licensing fees".

    1. Re:Well... by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure about that. LucasFilm makes a lot of money from marketing Star Wars toys. I suspect at least part of this is related to the fact that they don't want to see headlines reading "Six year old boy blinds and burns sister with toy Lightsaber". Yes, we know that these things A) aren't toys, and B) aren't Lightsabers, but that won't stop the headlines from playing out that way. I suspect LucasFilm would rather it just look like something else, and probably wouldn't allow a licensing deal even if Wicked offered to pay.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    2. Re:Well... by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      I'd mark you Insightful if it wouldn't remove my post that you responded to....Tricky world, Slashdot.

  44. Brilliant! by electricprof · · Score: 1

    Ok right after I invent my time machine, I will go back in time and have an Idea. I will then patent this Idea and establish prior art for all ideas.

  45. Once again the obligatory warning: by Glock27 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do Not Look Into Laser with Remaining Eye!

    (My favorite lab warning sign of all time...)

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  46. What about Park Sabers? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    They make lookalikes too.

    Actually, with respect to making lightsaber replicas specifically for the public, Park Sabers has been around even longer than Lucasfilm.

  47. Can we please have a -2 didn't RTFA mod? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Please?

    I wont to see the idiot who clearly didn't read the article moderated to hell.

    They run around projecting the narcissistic doom and gloom via wild speculation based on a poor interpretation of a headline.

    I am not new here by any stretch of the imagination. I have been here long enough to get sick of it, come to terms with it, and then get really sick of it again.ad nausium

    FYI: IT's abouit the look of the handle,. not about it being a laser.

    "high-powered product he says looks too much like the famous lightsaber from his classic sci-fi series"

    AND

    "These references make it clear that the public is being led to believe that the Pro Arctic Laser is an official lightsaber device and/or copied from our design," the Lucasfilm letter said.

    It's a CNN article people. It's not going to be hard to read.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Can we please have a -2 didn't RTFA mod? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      "These references make it clear that the public is being led to believe that the Pro Arctic Laser is an official lightsaber device and/or copied from our design," the Lucasfilm letter said.

      Which is blatantly false. The company never tries to claim that their laser is a "lightsaber", nor do they ever make any comparisons to one. It's all people OUTSIDE of the company seeing that it's a high powered laser that looks futuristic and going "Dude, it's a frakkin lightsaber!!"

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:Can we please have a -2 didn't RTFA mod? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I am in no way saying his case has merit, only that it has nothing to do with functionality or design of a laser.

      He may have a case if there is cause to believe Wicked laser tacitly backed the idea that there a SW knock off.
      I don't know the detail, just speculating.

      I am just tired of peopel spouting off and then getting modded up when it's clear they don't know what the heck they are talking about. Then I have to wade through +5 insightful about how thr whole laser industry will collapse if lucas 'gets away' with this.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  48. you miss the point by davrob60 · · Score: 1

    The problem is not that George "developed" the concept, the problem is that the Pro Arctic Laser series "looks too much like the famous lightsaber".

    1. Re:you miss the point by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well whose surprised ? Form sometimes must follow function. It's not an ACCIDENT that the Martin Aircraft Company's real Jetpacks look so much like the one Boba Fet had on - it's the only shape a backpack with a jet-engine CAN be.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  49. game over man, GAME OVER! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Howard the Duck.

    And don't try to weasel out by claiming he was "only a producer".

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:game over man, GAME OVER! by chill · · Score: 1

      But, I *loved* Howard the Duck! Are you saying there was something wrong with that movie?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:game over man, GAME OVER! by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      Two words: duck tits. Really, _really_ wrong,

    3. Re:game over man, GAME OVER! by Pojut · · Score: 1

      If duck tits offend you, I highly suggest you never watch Meet the Feebles.

    4. Re:game over man, GAME OVER! by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      They don't _offend_ me. I'd just rather not see them. You know... like poor people (joke, for the humor-impaired).

    5. Re:game over man, GAME OVER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's duck with breasts. Nice melons, too.

      Warning: may contain NSFW images at the top (usually swimsuit close-ups).

  50. George Lucas is a talentless plagiarist by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
    He should be locked in stocks in Times square and have rotten tomatoes thrown at him.

    People need to stop buying his crap. Don't give him another red cent.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  51. Sci-fi copyright applied to science. by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seem pretty obvious to me that we cannot allow art copyright apply to scientific discoveries.
    No one is going to buy one simply because the handle looks similar (and it is a laser). And it is a handle, it is no wonder that it is similar looking to other handles.
    Quite a lot of possible future technology has been dreamed up by fiction writers.
    For example Star Trek could sue cell phone makers (the first ones even admit to being inspired by Star Trek).

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Sci-fi copyright applied to science. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      This isn't a scientific discovery. Their only innovation is that they can sell way more powerful lasers than anyone else.

    2. Re:Sci-fi copyright applied to science. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      of course you are right, change "scientific discoveries" to "actual science".
      and that should work better.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  52. I completely understand. by UnSlashdot · · Score: 0

    They do look like like lightsabers. I think that they were purposely designed to look like lightsabers. Much of the media coverage of the product used the term "lightsaber". They are a dangerous product. If you owned a company and someone released a product that people were going to confusedly think was released by your company, and that product was starting accidental fires, damaging property, and blinding people, would you maybe try to stop them?

  53. waita minute by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

    does anyone here think that SW _isnt_ made for kids? Possibly with the added "enjoyable by their parents being dragged along to the movies also" bonus? it's a fairy tale for Christ's sake

    1. Re:waita minute by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I was ten, I read fairy stories in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

      -C. S. Lewis

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:waita minute by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It's a fairy tale for grown ups. Give the people something similar with more special effects and they'll relate to it from their childhood and feel better about it...

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:waita minute by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The original Star Wars was not something that made adults of the time embarrassed. You had plenty of adult
      fans of the original Star Wars. Some of them were even married and fans of the movie together. People who
      don't remember it don't realize how much of a wide appeal phenomenon it was.

      That's why there was that g-d forsaken Holiday Special.

      They didn't try to "pander" quite so much in those days. So a "childrens" movie might not have been so
      completely intolerable to anyone over 5 or with half a brain.

      The new trilogy has problems appealing to the very demographic it was targeting. George was actually in
      serious risk of "losing the next generation" entirely until the cartoon came along. It's still not as
      big as the original trilogy was. The new one has a lot more stiff competition than the old one did. ...like how the Ford of the Model-T era had the field to itself.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  54. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can there be a conflict? A light saber is a fictional device that appears in movies, while a laser is a real world device. So I ask you - how can real objects be forced to comply due to conflict with fiction??? It's just fucking stupid.

    On those grounds - Gene Roddenberry's estate should be suing cell phone manufacturers because the look LIKE communicators.

    Likewise - Sir Arthur C. Clarke's estate should be suing Apple for the iPad because it resembles the pads used in 2001 (just watch the movie - the form factor and function was in evidence prior to 1969).

    In the real world science reality moves towards recreating science fiction in reality and due to usable form factor, convergence can hardly be escaped.

    These lasers for example - to contain the components, the batteries and be hand held - how can they avoid looking like a flashlight? And why don't the flashlight manufacturers sue Lucas since they predate the "light saber?"

    It ranks up there with Lucas demanding that the Droid change its name, when his word is just a bastardization of the word android whose roots come entirely from Greek meaning "man shaped" (whatever agency granted that trademark should be dismantled due to a terrible affliction of stupid). This overly litigious bullshit needs to come to an end. When It stifles innovation due to fiction and cosmetics - it brings me back to my original point... it's fucking stupid.

  55. Graflex shoudl sue Lucas! by tekrat · · Score: 2, Informative

    If Lucas is claiming the "lightsaber handle" is *his* intellectual property, he's on very shakey ground as the prop in the ORIGINAL STAR WARS was a Graflex handle, a fairly off-the-shelf item in the moviemaking biz.

    Similarly the prop control panel for the Death Star's main weapon was a Grass-Valley video switcher. These are not Lucas's intellectual property. They are common items that were used in the movie because the guy was strapped on the budget.

    Is Lucas going to sue anyone making a 3-wheeled two-seater with no top, even though *they* used the chassis from a Reliant Robin for the landspeeder? And what about blasters? The guns used in the movie were slightly re-dressed real weapons, he really doesn't have much copyright on existing designs that were around long before the film.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  56. no real light sabers allowed either? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What if someone build a real light saber? Would the IP of a non existing object restrict someone from selling a real one?

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:no real light sabers allowed either? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Under any sane system, no: an idea isn't an invention. Any dozy twat can dream about something, but actually making it - and making it work - is another thing entirely.

      However it seems more and more WIBNI (wouldn't it be nice if...) patents are held to be valid. See the NTP vs RIM case.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  57. Related news by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Informative

    In a related story, the copyright holders of the Akira Kurosawa film "Hidden Fortress" have demanded that LucasArts cease all sales of "Star Wars".

  58. Indiana Jones was directed by Spielberg by swb · · Score: 1

    Spielberg directed the first 3 Indy Jones movies, that's why they're so good.

    "American Graffiti" was a popcorn movie that pandered to Baby Boomers' phony memories of growing up; its only real relevance was contributing to the 1950's craze in the '70s that peaked with "Happy Days" and "Laverne & Shirley". The only reason anyone pays attention to it is that it was directed by Lucas and it has a cast with many people who became famous.

    Star Wars (the first one) was a great film on many levels, both in terms of storytelling, establishing a mythic universe that felt real and in breakthrough effects.

    But I think "THX-1138" was the only one that really strikes me as a good film that reaches for art and mostly grasps it.

    1. Re:Indiana Jones was directed by Spielberg by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Spielberg directed all 4 Indy films.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Indiana Jones was directed by Spielberg by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      There is no forth Indy movie.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    3. Re:Indiana Jones was directed by Spielberg by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      There is a fourth one, however.

    4. Re:Indiana Jones was directed by Spielberg by sconeu · · Score: 1

      That's because Yoda wasn't in it, and thus nobody to speak in postfix.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Indiana Jones was directed by Spielberg by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      And they have a plan.

    6. Re:Indiana Jones was directed by Spielberg by Meski · · Score: 1

      Have a Clayton's mod point funny from me.

  59. Jules Verne's Estate Sues US Navy by tekrat · · Score: 1

    You know, that submarine thing... I smell trillions in damages. Move over RIAA!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Jules Verne's Estate Sues US Navy by cpghost · · Score: 1

      On what grounds? Jules Verne's copyrights expired already... and this despite the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Submarines are in the public domain now, even drug barons use them.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  60. Pics of lightsabers from the movies by grimJester · · Score: 1

    Here

    I don't think they look any more alike than any tube with random ridges would.

  61. Re:Shaky legal ground, but I can see Lucasfilm's s by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    It falls plumb between trademark and copyright stools, but take a look at the uncropped picture of the laser. Ask 12 good men and true if it's not blindingly (ho ho) obvious that this device has been deliberately designed to look like a lightsaber, and I think you'll get an answer in the affirmative.

    Whether that's actionable or not is a more nuanced question, but can we please be honest about the design remit at work here. This is a lightsaber clone, with enough small differences that they can make a fight of it, grabbing more publicity all the way.

    Slashdotted, here's another one... http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/The-Skin-Melting-Spyder-III-Pro-Arctic-Laser-Is-a-Real-Life-Lightsaber.jpeg

    Even if it was specifically meant to look like a "lightsaber" it can be argued that the shape is the most practical for handling and mounting and if there wasn't a beam of fucking light coming out of it it could be mistaken for a dozen other things.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  62. credit where credit is due... by butterflysrage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    they were NOT "floating around in his head", the first three SW movies were ripped nearly line for line out of Norse myth (minus the space travel). Luke, Leia, Aniken, the emperor, Tatooine.... he didn't even bother to change their names. "Skywalker" is a direct translation of their Old Norse surname.

    Credit where credit is due... 4, 5 and 6 were Norse. 1, 2 and 3 were what you get when you see what is his original work.

    --
    the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
    1. Re:credit where credit is due... by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't forget Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, and many other non-specific thematic elements from his films.

      I have no problem with borrowing from other people's work (or histories, or mythologies), I just have a problem when you become a hypocrite and decide that people can't borrow from you, no matter how heavily you borrowed from others (Disney, I'm looking at you!).

      Lucas' borrowing was still better than Quentin Tarantino's, though. At least it wasn't immediately transparent, where with Tarantino's films I generally just play "where did he copy this from" during the whole movie, then go rent the actual original films instead of paying a bit of attention to his. The originals generally actually have realistic dialogue, and don't drop the f-bomb like a 13 year old who just decided it is cool, and gets a nice rise from his parents.

      Lucas really needs to relax. The first trilogy was a decent space opera, like a modern version of Flash Gordon. The second trilogy was a mass marketing campaign for toys and Happy Meals. Actually episode VI was also a mass marketing campaign for toys and Happy Meals as well. Leaving us with episodes IV-V, and III, the first two are pure fun, the last is actually a decent (albeit a bit trite) film.

      Indiana Jones was just pure awesome, up until the last move (which-does-not-actually-exist).

      Lucas can be either VERY good, or VERY bad, with absolutely nothing in between.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    2. Re:credit where credit is due... by rpillala · · Score: 1

      This is the first I've heard of this. Can you refer me to specific works? I used to be a mythology junkie when I was younger and I am eager to read some stuff I haven't read.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    3. Re:credit where credit is due... by SoupGuru · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://tattuinardoelasaga.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/tattuinardoela-saga-if-star-wars-were-an-icelandic-saga/

      Surely you're not referring to this. If so, your BS detector needs calibrating.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    4. Re:credit where credit is due... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      they were NOT "floating around in his head", the first three SW movies were ripped nearly line for line out of Norse myth (minus the space travel). Luke, Leia, Aniken, the emperor, Tatooine.... he didn't even bother to change their names.

      In his original scripts he just bashed a whole bunch of ideas together and kept chugging until he stumbled across a configuration that didn't entirely suck. It was still about as bad as Battlefield Earth -- the other versions were worse! The part with people being able to say "No, George, no" is why the first three movies were good. He got the ball rolling but the input of all the other people involved made sure the ball went where it was supposed to. Lucas without moderation or the influence of others is what we have in the nutrilogy.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:credit where credit is due... by CODiNE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For those wondering about this post. Here's another one.

      In googling around I haven't found any relevant cites but this article would seem to dispute the claim of Norse origins for Tatooine. I hope butterflysrage replies here and posts some nice links. It's an interesting theory and should be widely spread if true.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    6. Re:credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source please?
      Or worded a bit more strongly, I call bullshit.

    7. Re:credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you provide a link to the norse mythology you found that in? Google only comes up with Star Wars links :(

    8. Re:credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Hidden Fortress was my favorite Norse Samurai flick. Old Sven Kurosawa sure could make them.

    9. Re:credit where credit is due... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lucas' borrowing was still better than Quentin Tarantino's, though. At least it wasn't immediately transparent, where with Tarantino's films I generally just play "where did he copy this from" during the whole movie, then go rent the actual original films instead of paying a bit of attention to his.

      Lemme guess, and then you got to Kill Bill and wondered where he copied Uma's yellow motorcycle suit from, and went to watch Game of Death allegedly starring Bruce Lee and realized you'd taken an unexpected and dramatic dive down the quality scale. "Did George Lucas direct this?!" you wondered. "How could anyone disgrace Bruce's memory like this!"

      Or maybe that was just me. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:credit where credit is due... by upchuck605 · · Score: 1

      You've got is backwards. The "Norse myth" that you claim George Lucas plagiarized to create Star Wars is in fact a spoof written by a Jackson Crawford, who has an interest in Icelandic Sagas and language. His article "If Star Wars Were and Icelandic Saga" is a linguistic and cultural translation of George Lucas's Star Wars story, not the other way around. Author's comment from his article on WordPress (http://tattuinardoelasaga.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/tattuinardoela-saga-if-star-wars-were-an-icelandic-saga/): "It’s both a linguistic and a cultural translation of Star Wars in addition to everything being in Old Norse, I converted the story into a Norse reference frame, changing it into a story of family and treachery in the North Atlantic in the 900s. This original bit was framed quasi-seriously, as it was just a Facebook note shared with colleagues, pretending to be a scholarly article or introduction about a neglected piece of the manuscript tradition that supposedly underlies Star Wars (I had been reading a lot of Icelandic sagas and the standard editions are all preceded by introductions like this, except much longer and in Modern Icelandic). But I made up the manuscripts out of whole cloth." It is very well written and I will admit that I was fooled at first, but reading through the comments easily dispels any notion that this Norse myth actually existed prior to the author adapting the Star Wars Saga for his own purposes.

    11. Re:credit where credit is due... by a_nonamiss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realize that this is not a real Norse myth, right? Right?

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    12. Re:credit where credit is due... by boxwood · · Score: 1

      I thought it was a rip-off of Dune. No wait... Flash Gordon. No wait... Samurai flicks.

      Actually he combined a lot of stuff. Thats pretty much what most writers do.

      Although Episode 3 is pretty much Dune Messiah. But it made less sense.

    13. Re:credit where credit is due... by mr.dreadful · · Score: 2, Informative

      George was a huge fan of Joseph Campbell, specifically "Hero with a Thousand faces." The Bill Moyers interviews with Campbell ("The Power of Myth") was taped at Skywalker Ranch.

    14. Re:credit where credit is due... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Lemme guess, and then you got to Kill Bill and wondered w

      I usually watch a film, especially one of Tarantino's, and wonder how this shit gets so popular. "That's one shit movie". When I watched Kill Bill though, I thought "Wow, that's half a shit movie".

    15. Re:credit where credit is due... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's not true. Every story will have some similarity with some Norse myth due to the facvt her are a limited number of broad plots. All the Norse stuff comes from stories before them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:credit where credit is due... by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

      actually the whole Star Wars trilogy is basically a rip-off of Blakes 7. Evil space empire with a central nemesis, rebels fighting a lost cause, soldiers wearing battle armor that hides their faces.

    17. Re:credit where credit is due... by Thomasje · · Score: 1

      the first three SW movies were ripped nearly line for line out of Norse myth

      Er, no. I think you fell for a joke article where the reverse was done (retelling Star Wars in the style of an Icelandic Saga): http://tattuinardoelasaga.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/tattuinardoela-saga-if-star-wars-were-an-icelandic-saga/

    18. Re:credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they were NOT "floating around in his head", the first three SW movies were ripped nearly line for line out of Norse myth (minus the space travel). Luke, Leia, Aniken, the emperor, Tatooine.... he didn't even bother to change their names. "Skywalker" is a direct translation of their Old Norse surname.

      Credit where credit is due... 4, 5 and 6 were Norse. 1, 2 and 3 were what you get when you see what is his original work.

      Very well, then, give them their credit: which Norse myths? I'd love to read them.

    19. Re:credit where credit is due... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did a search on this and only found a blog where someone is basically re-writing Star Wars as an old Norse saga. If you're referring to something else that I'm missing, please post a link. If it's true, then I'd really like to read more about it.

  63. Motorola DROID name: trademark of Lucasfilm Ltd. by Tarantura · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much HTC and Motorola had to pay Lucas to use the name for their phones (you'd think I was kidding).

  64. compare and contrast... by night_flyer · · Score: 1

    Lucas Lightsabre: http://blog.movieset.com/special/own-a-piece-of-film-history

    Wicked Laser: http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/S3_Spyder_Arctic-96-37.html

    If all it takes is a light coming out of a cylinder, then Maglight would have a very good case against Lucas...

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  65. Worse than that.. by WittyName · · Score: 1

    USA postal service considers that body part "non-essential". You get a pittance.

    Google it!

    --
    The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
    1. Re:Worse than that.. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > USA postal service considers that body part "non-essential". You get a
      > pittance.

      Only if you are fool enough to accept the first offer. Otherwise you get what the jury decides to give you unless you accept the improved offer the USPS makes when they realize you aren't bluffing about going to court.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  66. I had forgotten about both by Shin-LaC · · Score: 1

    But now I remember how much I hate both Geoge Lucas and getting blinded for life in a millisecond by assholes playing with lasers. Hopefully they will destroy each other!

  67. Lucas is right by Zot+Quixote · · Score: 0

    I know Lucas bashing is fun, and its easier than thinking about what's actually being discussed, but the look of the thing combined with what its designed to do and way its being marketted basically means that Lucas *must* attempt to defend his copyright.

    On an unrelated note, these things are dangerous as heck. People are going to blind themselves accidentally or worse. Really ought to be regulated. Definitely not something kids should be allowed to play with. There was a previous slashdot article about this.

    1. Re:Lucas is right by night_flyer · · Score: 1

      you don't have to defend a copy right, only a trademark or patent

      --


      Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
      Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  68. Oxymoron Alert! by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you used the term "good lawyer" that's like saying "honest politician" or "military intelligence." You shouldn't use phrases with words that directly contradict themselves.

    1. Re:Oxymoron Alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant 'good' as in 'good at being a lawyer' rather than describing said lawyer's moral stance.

  69. No, Lucas is not trying to patent the Light Saber by meta · · Score: 1

    Lucas is not trying to claim prior art on hand held lasers. It's not a patent dispute and has nothing to do with tech. It's a copyright claim. Lucas is claiming that the HILT DESIGN duplicates a light saber from the movie images.

    --
    Sometimes they fool you by walking upright.
  70. Re:No, Lucas is not trying to patent the Light Sab by night_flyer · · Score: 1

    doesn't look anything like this one... so which one is he referring to?

    http://blog.movieset.com/special/own-a-piece-of-film-history

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  71. In related news... by Robotron23 · · Score: 1

    A class action suit by people suffering from thyroid tumours was filed today:

    Sufferers allege that George Lucas's neck imitates the ailment too closely.

  72. Re:No, Lucas is not trying to patent the Light Sab by irving47 · · Score: 1

    If he had a leg to stand on Park Sabers would be dust by now.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
  73. That's a big stretch for copyright. by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's a big stretch for copyright.

    Copyright doesn't cover functional parts of objects. A D-battery sized cylinder with a light source at one end predates anything Lucas has done. The exterior detail doesn't match any Lucas product. Lucas doesn't have a design patent, and if he did, it would have expired years ago. Lucas would lose this in court.

    The Wicked Lasers device is probably just a prototype, though. They admit they're getting those Nichia NDB7352 1 watt laser diodes by disassembling video projectors. If the product was in production, they'd be buying them in bulk from Nichia.

    1. Re:That's a big stretch for copyright. by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      I agree this is a big stretch for copyright the hilts of the lightsaber being copyrighted. Also how old is Lucas patent I really tend to agree that a judge would throw this out. We will have to wait and see what happens.

    2. Re:That's a big stretch for copyright. by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      The Wicked Lasers device is probably just a prototype, though. They admit they're getting those Nichia NDB7352 1 watt laser diodes by disassembling video projectors. If the product was in production, they'd be buying them in bulk from Nichia.

      Not a prototype. Disassembling projectors is the only way to obtain these lasers in any quantity, even for relatively large scale manufacturing. I'm not kidding. I'm in the projector-disassembly business, supplying these lasers to manufacturers all over the world in significant quantities. Nichia and Casio seem to have a 100% exclusive deal. Casio will not even sell the laser arrays as a replacement part for the projectors. Nichia will not respond to any inquiries about these lasers, not even quote requests for 10,000 pieces.

      The lasers in the Casio projectors are not identical to the Nichia NDB7352. The 7352 is in a 9mm package, the projector lasers are 5.6mm. The 7352 is not rated for use over 1W whatsoever, while the projectors run each laser at approximately 2W peak power (700mW approx average). The beam quality of the 7352 is much better. These projector lasers have no markings at all on the can, but everyone seems to agree that they are Nichia dice. They may even use the same die as the 7352 but with much lower quality standards. Regardless, you can bet that for every 24 of these lasers sold in a non-Casio product there is a dead DLP projector out there somewhere.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
  74. Why stop there ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should send a letter to Obama for infringing on the Sith Lord

  75. Good as in effective, not morally good by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

    The same sense Han meant when he used the phrase "good blaster".

    And in the sense of "does the dirty business for which it was created well", there are most certainly good lawyers, and you want one by your side. Probably in preference to a blaster. After all, a good blaster may be helpful in a firefight, but is typically unwise to use in a courtroom. While a good lawyer is very helpful in a courtroom, and can be used as a shield during a firefight.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  76. THIS is why we don't have Flying Cars! by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

    If we had Flying Cars, Hanna Barbara would be pursuing legal action in order to protect someone from profiting from flying cars that are obviously a ripoff from the Jetsons!

  77. Fine George... by ujoronen · · Score: 1

    ...when are you going to pay Paramount royalties because the star destroyers and Millenium Falcon use FTL? Of course you may wish to sue medical laser manufacturers who use a similar form factor. George, you need to send your lawyers packing to the same deep dark hole that Sun sent their legal team to when they sued the Republic of Java for infringement. Just sayin'.

  78. But light sabers AREN'T LASERS by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    George Lucas fails the invented physics of his own fictional universe forever!

  79. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George, my friend, you need serious help. Go out and seek it. Immediately.

  80. You got it WRONG by unixtechie · · Score: 1

    This is a journalist "joke" distortion of a serious issue.
    This has nothing to do with Lucas' ego, whatever the slashdot lemmings say.
    The thing is the company sells pretty powerful lasers, and THE TOTALITARIAN US wants to prevent people from having them.
    For one reason or another they cannot "forbid" the lasers -- therefore the old fart Lucas and the fake 'intellectual property' argument.
    Clear as day. Although the great brainwashed just refuses to see the issue for what it is.

  81. Droid by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Why does Motorola have to license the word 'Droid' from Lucasfilm? If you look its on every Droid commercial. So Lucas owns the word Droid now too?

    --
    Good-bye
    1. Re:Droid by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      He also owns the words "George", "Lucas", "license" and "word". That means you owe him $1 million in royalties for using those four words in your post.

      Crap....I used them too...

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  82. Copyrights trump Patents ? by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    So back in the '40s Asimov had this idea of little satellites in Earth orbit and then put them in his sci-fi. Does that mean he could have litigated against NASA ?

    Sounds loony tunes to me.

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
  83. Poo-doo! by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Okay, so the complaint is that it "looks like a lightsaber." Okay. What if they bent it somewhere in the middle to fashion a handle? Now it "looks like a blaster."

    I think there is no way out of this beyond filing a suit against Lucas' legal team for lawyer bullying or whatever the actual term for that is. The fact is, the shape is somewhat limited and determined by its function. If they want to make it look kinda "futuristic" by adding shapes and textures, that should not infringe on anything that Lucas itself isn't already infringing on... they sure as hell didn't invent the practice.

    And here's the real kicker -- it doesn't look like any of the lightsabers I have ever seen beyond it being "round-tube-shaped with energy coming out of one end...or two"

    Next we are going to hear from Ferrari... it seems the Ford F-150 shares enough similarities with a Ferrari cars to warrant a C&D against the manufacture and sale of the F-150 trucks. Four wheels, steers with two of them, engine power on two of them, had a generally rectangular arrangement of the wheels... yeah just like a Ferrari.

  84. Re:No, Lucas is not trying to patent the Light Sab by meta · · Score: 1

    Until we see the complete C&D letter, there's no knowing.

    It could be one of the hilts in the movie series---or, it occurred to me, one of the hilts in the merchandise as well.

    Or it could be he's claiming the all hilts have a common design that is being copied. That would be harder to make stick because the hilts were quite different from one another, reflecting the story line that each was the unique design of its wielder.

    --
    Sometimes they fool you by walking upright.
  85. Dunno, actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dunno if I'd even give him credit for basically inventing the lightsaber, though. It's been one of those ideas that has floated around for at least one millennium, in one form or another.

    E.g., King Arthur's sword Excalibur is said in various legends to be so bright that you can't (or can only with difficulty) look at it, and in at least one it consists or is covered in two jets of bright flame coming from the two chimaera heads on the hilt. It also can slice right through steel.

    Other flaming swords or swords made of flame date as far back as Genesis (God placed one at the entrance to Eden after kicking those two buggers out), or one that shines like the sun is supposed to be wielded by Surtr (leader of the Muspelheim fire giants) in the battle of Ragnarok in Norse mythology. In fact Surtr's sword is arguably even more interesting as it isn't described as flaming or made of fire, but as a sword which shines brighter as the sun.

    And while not exactly contemporary with the old Norse, there are paintings from _long_ before Lucas which represent Surtr wielding basically a lightsaber. E.g., "The Giant with the Flaming Sword" by John Charles Dollman from 1909.

    Or there's the sword Tyrfing, again norse, forged by the dwarves to shine like the sun and cleave through steel or stone like through cloth. (The only catch was that it _had_ to kill someone each time it was drawn, if all else fails, even its wielder.)

    And while not necessarily flaming, great heroes carrying awesome swords with supernatural abilities in battle is basically as old as we have a history. The Celts have the likes of Caladbolg which cleaves hills and leaves a rainbow arc when swung (weapon swing arc effects in computer games, anyown?;)), Caesar had the Crocea Mors, etc.

    Really, I liked the original trilogy and all, and I'm not trying to minimize Lucas's role on the whole. But crediting lightsabers as his invention, is a bit like crediting Disney with inventing mermaids ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Dunno, actually... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      There is also my namesake from the myths of ancient India.

    2. Re:Dunno, actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Aye, I don't think it's even possible to list them all. For most of human history, having an awesomely supernatural weapon was pretty much a requirement to be a hero. If you were just a guy who killed 100 people with a regular sword, you were just some lucky peasant. But have one sword that never misses or looks like a CCFL tube on a hilt, and you're a hero. Have _two_ and you're already in the elite league, next to Arthur and Beowulf ;)

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:Dunno, actually... by yotto · · Score: 0

      He's not suing them for making a tube that emits light.

      He's not suing them for making something that could be mistaken for a glowing sword.

      He's suing them because they molded their laser pointer like a lightsaber handle. You could use that thing in your fan film (except it would double your budget) and people would praise the prop. If you left it on your desk or work bench, anybody who has seen the movies would ask you where you got your lightsaber laser pointer.

      It doesn't vaguely resemble a lightsaber handle. It IS a lightsaber handle. I hate to say it but I'm on Lucas' side here.

    4. Re:Dunno, actually... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Why, because it's an irregular cylinder and can be held in the hand? Lightsaber. Pro Arctic Laser. Not the same thing. Heck, there isn't even a single lightsaber design. What do they have to do -- make it into a dodecahedron?

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    5. Re:Dunno, actually... by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go so far as to say 'necessary'. Bible comes to mind and how a donkey's jawbone can't qualify as much of a weapon. :)

    6. Re:Dunno, actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      True enough. It's a different culture than I had in mind, but the point is well taken.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    7. Re:Dunno, actually... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "It doesn't vaguely resemble a lightsaber handle. It IS a lightsaber handle. I hate to say it but I'm on Lucas' side here."

      Every lightsaber is unique to the Jedi that created it.

      The casing practically *HAD* to be designed like that for any proper thermal management, and anyone that knows lasers could tell you this.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Dunno, actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      You know, though, it would look awesome as a lightsaber hilt. Beats half of Lucas's designs hands down. Maybe that's why he's ticked off.

      I'm thinking I might actually model it as a lightsaber hilt for, say, Fallout 3. It's not often one gets the opportunity to piss off Fallout purists, SW purists and Lucas himself in one fell swoop :p

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  86. Speaking of credit where credit is due ... by perpenso · · Score: 2, Informative

    Lucas did not write or direct episode V, The Empire Strikes Back.
    "... directed by Irvin Kershner. The screenplay, based on a story by George Lucas, was written by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_V:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back

  87. From George by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mad at you I am, sue you all I must.

      - George Lucas, Master Jedi

  88. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here, let me shoot you in the eye.

    thats what I tell you wife! XD

  89. Solo shot first.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and Mauser Gmbh. is waiting for some royalties.

  90. He was never "much better" by Benfea · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After Lucas' infamous hissy fit with the DVD standards committee, he refused to release any of his movies on DVD for a very long time. I got pretty angry at him for that, but I found that there were plenty of other movies out there deserving of my attention. So I went years without watching the Star Wars movies. It turns out that watching those movies regularly altered my perception of those movies. By not watching them for years, the spell lifted and when I finally came back, I was able to (finally) give a more fair evaluation of the original trilogy, and I have to say it didn't age well. At all. Now when I look at it, all I can see is the amazingly bad dialog, occasionally atrocious acting (who puts a hack like Mark Hamil in the same scene with the great Alec Guinness?), and of course plot holes you could drive an imperial star destroyer through.

    Lucas has always been a talentless hack. There was never a better time when he made better movies.

    Anyway, back to the topic at hand, the laser in question really does resemble the light saber. As much as it pains me to side with Lucas, it seems more than within his rights to argue copyright infringement.

    1. Re:He was never "much better" by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      After Lucas' infamous hissy fit with the DVD standards committee

      What is this referring to?

    2. Re:He was never "much better" by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Except this wouldn't be copyright, if you paid attention to the actual story. Each lightsaber is unique to the Jedi that crafted it.

      This would *MAYBE* be more like trademark, but since the makers do NOT claim it to have any association with the Lucas franchise, they're pretty much in the clear.

      Also, Lucas is just a dumbass with no basic idea how powerful lasers in a hand-held factor need to be designed for proper fanless cooling.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:He was never "much better" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You need to understand filming at the time to understand why they where great. and they where, they change the way people view science fiction. Compared to other sci-fi of the day, SW was , quite literally, jaw dropping.

      You are comparing some from there 70s with modern experience. That's not really fair.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  91. here is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My response is that I don't know how you can resent something that makes you a gajilionaire, but whatever.

    Because, have you ever heard the phrase "but what have you done lately?" ? I bet he has been hearing this almost every day for the last 30 years!

    PS: The article claims their argument is being made under copyright? Unless a sculpture is 100% the same, then I don't think he has a case. I'm even skeptical that the design of a "light saber" hilt can be protected under copyright anyways. Doesn't that fall under Design Patent?

  92. Please note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these lasers are classed as dangerous products and should not be sold in the EU or USA to anyone except scientists for use in lab conditions. They are extremely dangerous, particularly when placed in the hands of daft Star Wars fans. Secondly, Wicked Lasers haven't actually delivered *any* of these to customers yet, and my suspicion is that they never will.

  93. Diablo II Too by Mr_Blank · · Score: 1

    Did George ever getting around to suing Blizzard for including a brightly lit and lightweight sabre in Diablo 2? Just ridiculous if he did not go after those deep pockets. He's had 10 years to sue, so I guess if he has not gotten to it by now it might not happen...

  94. Valid and Invalid Case by Plekto · · Score: 1

    It's plainly obvious that they are making it look exactly like the crud Lucas glued together for his movies, so it's a no-brainer case against them.

    But they are in China. Short of the U.N. knocking on their door, there is nothing that can be done as they lack jurisdiction. It's not just a disbelief in copyrights and patents by China in general (which interestingly enough was the SAME position the U.S. took in the 1700 and 1800s against Europe), but that it's nearly impossible to bring any legal action against a company in China anyways unless you are based in China. It is well known that in the legal world that China is a black hole and not worth even sending a letter to the company in question.

    The only way I can think of this would be to yank some strings with the government(I wonder how many toys Lucas makes in China...) and hope that they actually care or listen.

  95. Not totally without merit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, here's the deal. Just looking at the *cropped* shot in the linked article, I couldn't see what the fuss was about. I went to the WickedLaser site, though and saw *this* picture:

    http://www.wickedlasers.com/images/products/secondary/297.jpg

    , and went "Oh." There's enough similarity there that Lucas might have to worry about losing the ability to protect his designs if he doesn't do anything. The thing looks like a lightsaber hilt. It doesn't look exactly like any specific lightsaber hilt from the films, but similar enough that there is definitely the possibility of it being considered a derivative work. might be market confusion as to who creates and/or *endorses* said item. I expect that WickedLasers will come out fine on this, but it's certainly not totally unexpected to get this sort of reaction.

  96. And in other news... "droid". by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you've all seen the Android commercials on TV... Ever read the fine print at the bottom? "Droid" is a registered trademark of Lucasfilm Ltd. Verizon and Motorola have been licensing it from Lucasfilm in relation to the Android-based phones.
    Sounds like Lucasfilm is getting a little grabby.

  97. What if you invented the future? Ask Rodenberry by devleopard · · Score: 1

    First off, this is *not* an attempt at Wars/Trek trolling.

    In Trek, you see a lot of objects that became, or highly influenced, what we have today: floppies/flash storage, iPhone (similar to tripod.. interesting name similarity), bluetooth earpieces (Uhura's communicator, as well as chest tap communicator in TNG), grocery store doors, etc. To drive the future is an honor. To hold it back is to steal from the future generations who will benefit from it.

    --
    The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
  98. Mr Lucas, Akira Kurosawa would like to have a word by jbezorg · · Score: 1

    Regarding IP.

    Specifically, The Hidden Fortress

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  99. Lucas at his best by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Willow was directed by Ron Howard, not Lucas. Granted, he was a producer, but it still wasn't totally "his baby".

    Lucas is at his best when he's NOT behind the camera calling all the shots. Raiders of the Lost Ark is probably testament Numero Uno to this. And while Empire and Return were great movies, I think we have to recognize that part of the reason that Star Wars was such a phenomenon is that it came along at exactly the right time and gave the country exactly what it needed... an old fashioned fairy tale of good guys vs. bad guys in the gray, dreary post-Vietnam world.

    Had Star Wars been released in any other time, it probably wouldn't have become the legend that it did. Had Star Wars been released in 1955 or 1995 (with appropriate levels of special effects for the period), it probably would have been as awkward as releasing Easy Rider in 1985. So to some extent, Lucas has probably profited from a good deal of lucky timing. Is he talented? Clearly. Is he the wunderkind that everyone thought in 1977? I think the test of time says "No".

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  100. I burned all my SW stuff long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had any of my StarWars crapola memorabilia left, I'd burn it for this. But, sadly, I went home from opening night of A Phantom Menace and burned it then.

    It was hard to set fire to my original, unopened VHS set of the original versions of the movies, but it had to be done.

    What was even harder was watching my original, still-in-the-box Millenium Falcon from 1977 melt and smoke away into a puddle of black ooze.

  101. George Lucus by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    "That's no laser!"

  102. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I remember correctly, Hong Kong reverted to Chinese control in 1999. Since when has China given two squats about copyright violations? All the lawyers can legally do is try and legislate an import ban.

  103. prior art? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I always thought the Lightsaber looked too much like a large version of Dr Who's sonic screwdriver. Maybe the BBC should sue Lucasfilms?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  104. Re:Shaky legal ground, but I can see Lucasfilm's s by toddestan · · Score: 1

    Maybe it was designed to look like Graflex Flash Gun?

  105. sorry george,but m. john harrison has prior art.. by haute_sauce · · Score: 1

    his novel 'virconium' (1971) describes a 'energy blade' (baan) in great detail. perhaps you owe aforementioned brit some back-royalties ?

  106. Re: iSabre by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    Luke "dam I hate this iSabre 4, every time I hold it in my left hand it turns off"
    Steve "you are holding it wrong"

  107. camera lens anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see a camera lens maker sue all the makers of licensed lightsabers for making something that looks too much like their lenses.

  108. Old FAT George "Fuckin" Lucas by dogzdik · · Score: 0
    You mean that is the only thing that this worthless prick can find to spend his time on?

    Like "Hey George - Starwars came out like 20 years ago Dude"... You have made your money, your fading into history and no one gets all excited any more - because Starwars have been re-run on TV like 400 times so far, on every TV station on every continent so far

    I mean I am not sure that people even tune into watch it any more.

    Stupid Fat Greedy American.

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

    1. Re:Old FAT George "Fuckin" Lucas by dogzdik · · Score: 0

      You mean the Light Sabers were not real?

      --

      .

      Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  109. Re:Shaky legal ground, but I can see Lucasfilm's s by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Even if it was specifically meant to look like a "lightsaber" it can be argued

    Of course it "can" (and will) be argued that blah blah blah, but can we please not say "even if". Of course it was designed to look like a lightsaber. Are we really going to pretend otherwise? This isn't a court, we don't have to be judicial about it.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  110. Re:Shaky legal ground, but I can see Lucasfilm's s by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    How can you prove it was specifically intended to resemble a lightsaber?

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  111. useless toy by Independent_forever · · Score: 1

    This is ridiculous....Thanks for supplying protective goggles for the buyer..how about the rest of us who might encounter the idiot geek who is carelessly using this toy around others...

  112. Light saber design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weren't the original props made from scrounged camera parts? Wait until someone sues George Lucas for misusing and misrepresenting those battery housings.

  113. Re:Shaky legal ground, but I can see Lucasfilm's s by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    I Am Not A Lawyer, and You Are Not A Judge. If your parents were closely related before they were married, then I'm sorry for you, but try not to get Retard on the rest of us.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  114. Re:Shaky legal ground, but I can see Lucasfilm's s by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the admonishment, you're truly a benefit to this community.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  115. Anti spam by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    Buy similar laser products from deal exchange for 1/10 price

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch