Main

May 16, 2007

Ellison vs. Fantagraphics Goes To Mediation

The Comics Reporter reports that the nasty suit between Harlan Ellison and Fantagraphics Books is heading into mediation; perhaps there’s hope that it will be resolved – well, “amicably” can rarely be applied to either Ellison or Gary Groth, so I won’t aim that high, but how about “without pools of blood on the floor”?

March 14, 2007

Oklahoma Says No to the Number of the Beast

Brain Chip

The Oklahoma Senate has passed a bill which would make it illegal to implant microchips into Oklahomans against their will.

Thought 1: Apparently, this will not stop Oklahomans from forcibly implanting chips into Texans or Kansans. Might we see a border war?

Thought 2: We'll never get the Evil One World Government up to snuff if elected officials keep foiling nefarious plots like this...

December 29, 2006

Ellison v. Fantagraphics: Lawsuit Update

Nothing has really happened yet -- it's just been lawyers sending pieces of paper back and forth -- but, for those who are interested in lawyer's pieces of paper, here are the ones in play.

Ellison's original complaint.

Fantagraphics's reply to the complaint

Fantagraphics's motion to dismiss.

Ellison's reply to that motion.

Fantagraphics's reply to the reply.

I don't think any of that is actually news, but this case may turn into news (if and when a hearing is scheduled) at some point. All of those links, by the way, are to PDFs, and some of them are large.

October 20, 2006

Fantagraphics Replies to Ellison Lawsuit

As has been reported all over the comics sector of the Internet (what? you didn't know each area of interest has its own sector?), Fantagraphic's lawyers have filed their response to Harlan Ellison's lawsuit.

It's in lawyerese, but, essentially, their defense is: a) they didn't say it, b) it's not illegal, and c) it's true anyway.

This one isn't as quotable as Ellison's complaint, but I particularly like the Sixth Affirmative Defense, where Fantagraphics claims that their statements "are constitutionally protected statements of opinion and/or rhetorical hyperbole." Does this mean we might see Ellison arguing that rhetorical hyperbole isn't constitutionally protected? (That would be interesting, to say the least.)

September 29, 2006

Harlan Ellison Lawsuit Update

Heidi MacDonald explains everything the general reader needs to know about Ellison's suit against Fantagraphics, in The Beat.

(The other rumored Ellison lawsuit is, as far as I can tell, still a rumor at this point.)