This post has been read 140 times!
In my federal lawsuit against Fox News and News Corp (Greer v. Carlson 20-cv-5484), I defeated the motion to dismiss with regards to the blacklisting and defamation causes of action. However, the judge surprisingly ruled that copyright law preempts my other “theft of ideas” common law arguments. I had thought the 2019 Supreme Court decision by Ginsberg clearly stated I cannot use copyright law because I had no copyright registration at the time of filing.
Here is the decision.
Now, you are going to read this and think I am delusional because everything in my complaint was dismissed. No. The judge bent over backwards to let me replead the blacklisting and defamation. That is very unusual. He also did not rule on the merits or evidence of the theft of my ideas.
This case is very much alive. The only setback is that I cannot go into discovery and move towards trial yet. I think this is a 90-day delay.
I can now file the copyright infringement causes of action in a new complaint, which is what I think the judge wants me to do. They know it is messy to rule in my favor the way it is now using common law torts rather than copyright law.
Recall, I originally used the copyright act in this complaint, but then learned that, since I had no copyright registration at the time I filed the case, I was not allowed to use the copyright act, per 2019 Supreme Court ruling. So, I changed tactics to argue misappropriation of ideas, and ideas are not copyrightable. It is cleaner now that I can use copyright law with a new and different complaint (But this existing complaint is still alive for the blacklisting and defamation).
I could also just appeal this “copyright preemption” part of the decision and not file a new copyright complaint. This decision ignored many of my arguments against preemption and goes against numerous large cases that are on my side of the argument. By ruling that copyright law preempts my common law claims, they escaped having to address my arguments. However, I think this would not survive on appeal.
Note that nothing in this decision states that my allegations of theft of my ideas are invalid or delusional. Nothing says that Fox did not blacklist or defame me. This is not a decision based on the evidence. It is only based on how I pleaded the case.
Interestingly, none of the defendants were ordered to be dropped from the list. Fox et al argued that Lachlan Murdoch, Suzanne Scott, all of News Corp, and others should be dropped from the case.
Also, the judge did not rule in the defendants’ favor on their argument that the statute of limitations on the defamation had expired. Some of my actions that I list as causes of action happened in 2013. But I argued the statute of limitations was reactivated by new actions related to those old actions (i.e. Gasparino recently defamed me, and in doing so, referenced the 2013 matter). My arguments were not shot down and their motion to dismiss based on this claim of expired statute of limitations was not approved.
Basically, the judge said I did not specifically enough state who said what and how that defamed me. I will simply ask many Fox people, now fired and on bad terms with Fox, what they know.
All of my allegations are very much alive. This decision just lets me adjust the scope on the rifle and be more precise. It is a recipe for how to properly allege defamation and blacklisting.