Questions about the Stouffer stuff..(warning-- kind of long)

[rainy_lilac at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 12787

Just so you know Kelly, a number of us have searched the most remote 
corners of the earth to find ANY existing copy of ANY of Stouffers 
works, or, failing that, hard evidence that these works in fact 
existed in published form. We have come of with nothing. 

I think I can safely say though that one would have an easier time 
snorkling in search of the Loch Ness Monster. I have worked as a 
professional researcher and pride myself on being able to dig up 
anything. Stouffer's Legend of Rah appears to have left not so much as 
a footprint in the publishing world.

Obviously the book must have existed or there would be no case. I 
suspect that Stouffer's Stouffer's works have been self-published-- 
kind fo like when I was twelve and decided to start my own newspaper I 
wrote the whole thing out by hand, photocopied it, and sold 
"subscriptions" door-to-door in my neighborhood. In Stouffer's case, 
it sounds like she took her self-made copies to her local Rite Aid to 
sell. I think technically under the law, once you put anything on 
paper, it is copyrighted and can be defended as such. Hmmm... But this 
is a Trademark case, which I think makes things different. My question 
is: Hasn't anyone noticed that Rowling isn't using "muggles" as a 
trademark? She is using it as a WORD, like turnip or green. I have 
never heard of anyone reserving a word for their exclusive use.

Heidi can say more about this part though. 

Cheers,

Suzanne




--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Kelley" <SKTHOMPSON_1 at m...> wrote:
> Heidi, I am a bit confused about some of this Stouffer stuff, and if 
> my questions are included in the FAQ, just say so, and I'll just 
wait 
> for that.  I recently went to the Stouffer site again, and reread 
her 
> list of similarities between her work and Rowling's.  What I don't 
> understand is, is the term 'muggle' the linchpin, so to speak, of 
her 
> case against JKR?  What I had assumed was that her entire list of 
> similarities was what her case was comprised of.  While many of 
these 
> instances of similarity can be found in other literary works, of 
> course, I was under the impression that her problem is that all 
these 
> similarities are both found in both their works.  I'm tempted to 
> write this woman to correct a number of her inaccuracies in 
> her 'similar points' list, such as 'crystal goblet', 'governor
> (?)/friar', 'muggles rejoicing', etc., though I'd be very surprised 
> if someone hasn't already done this.  From the 'Intro' to her books 
> that's found on her site, IIRC, nothing in this has anything in 
> common with the 'similarities' list (aside from the word 'muggles', 
> right?).  It sounds like an -entirely- different work (though I 
> didn't reread it again this last time I went there, but several 
> months back when the list was discussing it).  Personally, I had 
> never heard of her work, and if her intro from her site would be in 
> any way similar to what the blurb on the dust jacket of her book 
> would be, I cannot see any reasonable way someone might confuse the 
> two works.  I'm trying to be unbiased in this post, but I have to 
> say, if I just happened upon her site and read that intro, I would 
> have no interest in reading her book.  Just has no appeal to me.  
> Stouffer claims there was demand for her book; wouldn't it be 
> available in public libraries?  I've not tried looking, but is there 
> some reason it would not be available?  Sorry for such a long post 
> everyone...
> 
> Kelley