OK for Apple to Call Sagan 'Butt-Head Astronomer'

OK for Apple to Call Sagan 'Butt-Head Astronomer'

The Computer Lawyer

SECTION: CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS; Tort; Vol. 11, No. 8; Pg. 32

HEADLINE: OK for Apple to Call Sagan 'Butt-Head Astronomer'

Apple Computer Inc. did not defame the prominent scientist Carl Sagan by calling him a "Butt-Head Astronomer," a Central District of California court ruled, because the term did not imply any assertion of an objective fact such as professional incompetence. Carl Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., CV94-2180 LGB (C.D. Cal. 1994).

Apple Computer's project managers routinely assign code-names to products in development. In 1993, one of Apple's project managers assigned the code name "Carl Sagan" to a personal computer it was developing. After learning that his name was being used, Sagan had his attorneys write a letter to Apple demanding it cease. In response, the project manager changed the computer's code-name to "Butt-Head Astronomer." Sagan filed suit in federal court for libel, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, unfair competition, and violation of the Lanham Act and California law on the use of likenesses.

Apple argued that the term was an opinion, protected under the First Amendment. Judge Lourdes G. Baird agreed. She noted that a statement of opinion can only form the basis of a libel action if a reasonable fact-finder can conclude that the statements imply an assertion of fact. Judge Lourdes [sic] held that "one does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase 'butt-head,'" and that a reader aware of the context would understand the project manager was retaliating in a humorous and satirical way.

Judge Baird also ruled that Sagan could not recover for infliction of emotional distress, noting Sagan is a public figure and that a public figure could only recover for infliction of emotional distress by showing that the publication contains a false statement of fact made with actual malice.

However, Apple lost its motions for a more definite statement of Sagan's Lanham Act claim. Apple had argued that Sagan's complaint had admitted that his name was only used internally at Apple, and could not, therefore, have been "in commerce" as required by the Act. Judge Baird noted that Sagan's complaint only asserted that Apple's attorneys had stated that the name was only used internally. Finally, Judge Baird denied Apple's motion to strike Sagan's invasion of privacy count as redundant in light of the right of publicity claim. She noted that the former asserted an additional request for punitive damages, and that the other redundant elements did not prejudice the defendant in any way.

Thanks to Mary Sprowl <[email protected]>

Back to Humor Index