Opinion · District Court, S.D. New York

Whist Club v. Foster

Whist Club v. Foster, 42 F.2d 782 (District Court, S.D. New York 1929)

Type
Opinion
Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1929-10-21
Topic
general

THACHER, District Judge. In the conventional laws or rules of a game, as distinguished from the forms or modes of expression in which they may be stated, there can be no literary property susceptible of copyright. Defendant has not infringed, because he has not copied the literary composition of the plaintiff’s publication, but, in language quite distinctly his own, has restated the same set of conventional precepts. This under all the authorities he was entitled to do, and neither the general acceptance of the rules as official, nor, if it were true, their rejection as officious, could have any bearing on this controversy. Bill dismissed, with costs.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Whist Club v. Foster. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
WHIST CLUB v. FOSTER, (S.D.N.Y. 1929)
42 F.2d 782
WHIST CLUB v. FOSTER et al.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
October 21, 1929.
In Equity. Suit by the Whist Club against Robert F. Foster and others for infringement of copyright on "Laws for Auction Bridge — 1926," by publication of defendant's "Foster's Simplified Auction Bridge (with the New Laws)."

Bill dismissed.
Fitzgerald, Stapleton Mahon, of New York City (John J. Fitzgerald and Wm. M.K. Olcott, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Stern Reubens, of New York City (Benjamin H. Stern and Raymond Reubens, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.
THACHER, District Judge.
In the conventional laws or rules of a game, as distinguished from the forms or modes of expression in which they may be stated, there can be no literary property susceptible of copyright. Defendant has not infringed, because he has not copied the literary composition of the plaintiff's publication, but, in language quite distinctly his own, has restated the same set of conventional precepts. This under all the authorities he was entitled to do, and neither the general acceptance of the rules as official, nor, if it were true, their rejection as officious, could have any bearing on this controversy.

Bill dismissed, with costs.Page 861