4 ms·
IANAL, so I'm hoping I'm understanding this right: because Okrand wrote the dictionary, and in it claimed that he learned it from an actual Klingon, he may not
by HCIdivision17 10y ago
IANAL, so I'm hoping I'm understanding this right: because Okrand wrote the dictionary, and in it claimed that he learned it from an actual Klingon, he may not now say he invented it? The argument kinda being, if the language is real, and he wrote a non-fiction authoratative book on it... then he can't be inconsistent about the origins?
It's hard for me to wrap my head around it, but it's hilariously clever if I'm reading it right.
- BryantD 10y agoThat's just the lawyer being clever -- it's obvious that claims made in a fictional context don't have the kind of weight he's ascribing to them. It's funny, though.
- AimHere 10y agoThat's the gist. This is the lawyer having (even more) fun with the lawsuit, because why the hell wouldn't you have fun in a job like this? I'm pretty sure that he and the judge both know that Okrand's claim was a fiction/joke and that this isn't a serious legal notion to be ruled upon.
- chris_wot 10y agoI have a feeling there is double irony, because the attorney appears to have been one of the attorneys who fought Prenda Law. Prenda got smacked down pretty hard by a judge who decided to litter his judgement with Star Trek quotes.[1] 1. http://abovethelaw.com/2013/05/prenda-boldly-benchslapped-where-no-one-has-gone-before/ http://abovethelaw.com/2013/05/prenda-boldly-benchslapped-wh...