The Legend of Rah and the Muggles---coincidence?

[McMurphy]

As some of you may already know, an American author by the name of Nancy Stouffer attempted to sue Rowlings for alleged plagiarism of her books originally published in the 1980s. Stouffer not only failed, but got herself in legal hot water when the court alleged that she faked evidence.

There is evidence, however, not faked, and certainly with viewable sources, so I put forth the following question: is there, in your own opinion, any possible merit to Stouffer's claims? Take the following "coincidences" as only a few concrete examples:

-Stouffer DID have published work that greatly highlighted the term "muggles."

-One of Stouffer's main characters were named, believe it or not, Larry Potter.

Take a look at her site at Real Muggles. I find very interesting the following paragraph:

"If you are, or were ever employed by J.K. Rowling, Scholastic Inc., Arthur A. Levine, Time-Warner Entertainment, Thurmanhouse, Landoll Publishing Company, McGraw Hill, Ratner and Prestia, O’Melvney & Myers, LLP, or Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klien & Selz, P.C., The United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and/or Judge Allen G. Schwartz, or any other individual, or firm that may have been, or is affiliated with any of the above, in any way, and you have any information that may be important to, or give assistance to Mrs. Stouffer, your help is needed. Any information you may have would be greatly appreciated, even the most insignificant details you may be able to provide will be helpful, you may choose to remain anonymous, although we would certainly appreciate those who are willing to stand bravely beside us as we continue to pursue justice. (For confidential contact information, please open the tab titled "Muggle Action")."

 

[Kitera]

I really don't know what to say. I, personally don't think Rowling would steal the idea off her, though we may never know. She even have one book named, "Lilly Potter," according to the site above.

I...don't believe her though. *shrugs* What do the others think?

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

I'm always a trifle dubious when it comes to people being sued, especially in the American legal system.
Maybe she was genuinely outraged that a term and/or name from one of her books was used in another but I bet she wanted a piece of someone else's pie and decided this was the best way to do it.

Had she written a book about a young boy living in the real world, discovering that he was actually a wizard who went to study in a special wizards school run by a man called Bumbledore and subsequently attacked by the evil Baron Goldmort then maybe she'd have a stronger case.

However, if it's just about the use of the word Muggle and Potter, then no wonder the judge threw her out of court. Last time I looked, two words don't make a story. The possibility that she allegedly falsified her papers to (no doubt) attempt to make her work more reflective of JK Rowling's to strengthen her court case does not speak highly for her level of integrity & honesty, though.

 

[Joel007]

Potter is a common enough name, and as for the word "muggle":




3 results for: muggle

View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source Main Entry: muggle1Part of Speech: nDefinition: a marijuana cigaretteEtymology: 1920sUsage: slang
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2006 Lexico Publishing Group, LLCWebster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source Main Entry: muggle2Part of Speech: nDefinition: a common person, esp. one who is ignorant or has no skillsExample: There are muggles in every computer class.Etymology: 1920sUsage: slang
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6)
Copyright © 2003-2006 Lexico Publishing Group, LLCWebster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source Main Entry: muggle3Part of Speech: nDefinition: a person without magical powersEtymology: 1996; popularized by J. K. Rowling in "Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone"


I can't turn off that weird font at the top

 

[dwndrgn]

Take a look at her site at Real Muggles. I find very interesting the following paragraph:

"If you are, or were ever employed by J.K. Rowling, Scholastic Inc., Arthur A. Levine, Time-Warner Entertainment, Thurmanhouse, Landoll Publishing Company, McGraw Hill, Ratner and Prestia, O’Melvney & Myers, LLP, or Frankfurt, Kurnit, Klien & Selz, P.C., The United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and/or Judge Allen G. Schwartz, or any other individual, or firm that may have been, or is affiliated with any of the above, in any way, and you have any information that may be important to, or give assistance to Mrs. Stouffer, your help is needed. Any information you may have would be greatly appreciated, even the most insignificant details you may be able to provide will be helpful, you may choose to remain anonymous, although we would certainly appreciate those who are willing to stand bravely beside us as we continue to pursue justice. (For confidential contact information, please open the tab titled "Muggle Action")."

At first I read this as just a plea for help. But, then I thought about it. What kind of things is she looking for? Some secret memo from JKR to self "toss all copies of Stouffer's books so as not to incriminate myself". Plus, I agree, the name thing is completely inconsequential (is JKR suing Jim Butcher for having his hero named Harry too?) as these are normal everyday names. The muggle thing could have been an unconscious leftover, but again, this isn't the actual story or neither is it the biggest part of the story. I see why the judge threw it out of court. This pleading paragraph makes me just squirm for her. Obviously she truly feels that the use of the term muggle is hers, and hers alone. However, she really needs to realize that this will never get her anywhere. And falsifying evidence doesn't help either.

 

[that old guy]

Looks like she's out of luck. She lost on the district court level and got hit with a fine. She also lost on appeal.

And, man, reading between the lines of the district court case, I'm seeing a judge who is seething at having his time wasted over this baloney. Not that I read a lot of court decisions, but I do see some, and this is about as ugly a paragraph in a judgement as I've ever seen. Quite frankly, she's lucky she didn't get hit with some sort of criminal prosecution for fraud.

The rest of the decision is at the link. Among other things she was claiming that documents had been printed via a technology that didn't exist at the time she was originally claiming they were printed, and that she'd sold a lot of books when she'd sold virtually none.

Stouffer v. Rowling Summary Judgment Decision, Sept. 17, 2002

In conclusion, the Court finds, by clear and convincing [*58] evidence,
that Stouffer has perpetrated a fraud on the Court through her submission of
fraudulent documents as well as through her untruthful testimony. Such
finding requires that the Court next determine the appropriate sanction to
impose. In making that determination, the Court considers five factors: (i)
whether the misconduct was the product of intentional bad faith; (ii)
whether and to what extent the misconduct prejudiced the plaintiffs; (iii)
whether there was a pattern of misbehavior rather than an isolated instance;
(iv) whether and when the misconduct was corrected; (v) whether further
misconduct is likely to occur in the future. See McMunn, supra, 191 F.
Supp.2d at 461.

Plaintiffs seek two types of sanctions: the dismissal of Stouffer's
counterclaims and the award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in this action. In granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
the Court has already dismissed Stouffer's claims; thus, the Court need not
address the issue of whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction. With
respect to plaintiffs' legal fees and costs, the Court finds that an award
of such fees and costs is appropriate given the fact that Stouffer
has engaged in a pattern of intentional bad faith conduct and failed to
correct her fraudulent submissions, even when confronted with evidence
undermining the validity of those submissions. It is true that Stouffer is
the defendant in this action and thus not all of the attorneys' fees and
costs incurred by plaintiffs in this action are attributable to Stouffer's
fraud on the Court. However, Stouffer's calculated generation of fraudulent
documents and testimony undoubtedly imposed burdens on plaintiffs by
increasing the legal fees and expenses incurred by plaintiffs in the
investigation and defense of her counterclaims. Accordingly, the Court
awards a monetary sanction against Stouffer in the amount of $ 50,000.

In addition, the Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory
award of attorneys' fees and costs with respect to their defense of
Stouffer's trademark claims. Under the Lanham Act, prevailing parties in
trademark infringement actions may be awarded attorneys' fees and costs in
"exceptional cases." 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The Second Circuit has held that
fees will only be awarded upon evidence of fraud or bad faith. See Conopco,
Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co., 95 F.3d 187, 194 (2d Cir. 1996)
(citations omitted). Here the Court finds that Stouffer has asserted claims
and defenses without any reasonable basis in fact or law and has attempted
to support such claims and defenses with items of evidence that have been
created or altered for purposes of this litigation. This Court has granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with respect to Stouffer's Lanham
Act claims and finds that there is clear evidence of Stouffer's fraud and
bad faith in the prosecution of such claims. Accordingly, plaintiffs are
awarded their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending those claims.

I'm usually sympathetic to the little guy, but not when the little guy is as crooked as a dog's hind leg.

 

[Pyan]

Had she written a book about a young boy living in the real world, discovering that he was actually a wizard who went to study in a special wizards school run by a man called Bumbledore and subsequently attacked by the evil Baron Goldmort then maybe she'd have a stronger case.

Assuming she could prove she wrote it before Rowling. If the bit about the printing technology is correct, I can't imagine what Stouffer was thinking of. Did she think that Rowling would panic, and give her lots of money to go away?

 

[PTeppic]

"Potter is a common enough name"

According to this site, the surname Potter is 209th most popular in Britain (where the books are set).

(Rowling is equal 8283rd, whilst Stouffer isn't listed.)

 

[McMurphy]

Assuming she could prove she wrote it before Rowling. If the bit about the printing technology is correct, I can't imagine what Stouffer was thinking of. Did she think that Rowling would panic, and give her lots of money to go away?

Maybe. I remember reading the story first years ago in Entertainment Weekly (I know, I know...) and the challenging author framed her victim's stance as if she merely asked Rowling's publishing house about the coincidences, and they turned around and brought her to court. From what I am reading now, she brought Rowlings to court and made the accusation, right? Seems like if someone is willing to mislead others on even that basis....

 

[Koopa]

Well i havent read Stouffer book or any of what might exist of her so i cant make a judgement on it

 

[littlemissattitude]

And, man, reading between the lines of the district court case, I'm seeing a judge who is seething at having his time wasted over this baloney. Not that I read a lot of court decisions, but I do see some, and this is about as ugly a paragraph in a judgement as I've ever seen.

Yes, I'd say that the judge here was pretty ticked off. Although...I've read quite a few written opinions (had to do a lot of case briefs when I was a paralegal student), and this isn't nearly as snotty as some I've read. Those sorts of of opinions (and, especially, dissents), especially on the level of the US Supreme Court, are really the most fun to read, because they can be lethally cutting while still observing all the legal and social conventions of politeness and urbanity. The best ones are when the justice writing calls one or more of the other justices idiots...without using that exact word, of course.

 

[McMurphy]

Yes, I'd say that the judge here was pretty ticked off. Although...I've read quite a few written opinions (had to do a lot of case briefs when I was a paralegal student), and this isn't nearly as snotty as some I've read. Those sorts of of opinions (and, especially, dissents), especially on the level of the US Supreme Court, are really the most fun to read, because they can be lethally cutting while still observing all the legal and social conventions of politeness and urbanity. The best ones are when the justice writing calls one or more of the other justices idiots...without using that exact word, of course.

They can do that???

God. I knew there was a reason I should have studied harder.