Because he knew the editor had discussions with the webcomic guys before?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unless he admitted as much to this fact how would the LWZ guys know this ? He had no reason to admit this. I would think he wouldn't admit it if he was trying to pull a fast one. Definately from a legal stand point he leaves himself open to possible legal issues by admitting of such knowledge.

Al wrote: ...The fact that Mike Richardson discussed with them previously about publishing their Zombies material legally removes the notion of 'coincidence'. (Which, yeah, it may well be, but that's not how the law will look at it at this point!) ...

That's what I was thinking, too. I can't believe Richardson publicly acknowledged that his editor told him about the comic "Living With Zombies," and his desire to publish it, before Richardson wrote his own story.

And wouldn't it have been smart for Richardson to at least ask that editor what the story in "Living With Zombies" was all about?

Al wrote: ...If Matt's friends are telling the truth about their conversations with Dark Horse (note I don't say Mike Richardson), then they really should speak with a lawyer...

An associate editor from Dark Horse DID e-mail Matthew Billman about publishing the series. That's what Richardson is referring to when he talks about the editor approaching him over the web comic ("Living With Zombies" is both a web comic and has been published and distributed through Diamond). Billman is definitely telling the truth, and Richardson backed that up with his reponse on Comic Book Resources.

Lars wrote: ...Matt, what is going to happen is, they are not going to read any comics and ideas sent in...

Dark Horse?

I thought I wrote it clear enough more than once:

An associate editor (who I name on the first page of this thread) e-mailed Matthew Billman about the possibility of Dark Horse comic publishing "Living With Zombies," which the editor apparently saw on Billman's website.

Dark Horse comics solicited Matthew Billman, not the other way around.

Mike Richardson's response to Matthew Billman, which Richardson gave to be published online on Comic Book Resources:

"...My only exposure to your (Billman's) creation came when I was approached by one of my editors some time back about a possible resemblance to an on-line comic he was interested in publishing in comic form. Because of the possible similarities, I passed on the project and purposely have not EVER looked at it..."

Richardson acknowledges he knew of "Living With Zombies" before publishing hi own book in that quote.

Matt wrote: I thought I wrote it clear enough more than once:

An associate editor (who I name on the first page of this thread) e-mailed Matthew Billman about the possibility of Dark Horse comic publishing "Living With Zombies," which the editor apparently saw on Billman's website.

**********

I am not referring to that at all. I don't doubt that he was approached by Dark Horse. What I meant is, another person, let's call him 12 year old John Doe is going to send in some fun comics. Instead of him becoming a new Roger Stern, nobody will look at it, since they don't want to be sued. You clearly said it's alright to sue when they already glanced at a comic, I mean that is the point in what you want to say. Well, they, the company, will make sure they never glance at any comic again, at least not the unnessecary not ordered material. What is the best way to do that? It's to not open the sent in envelope. It does not affect you or your zombie drawing friends, it affects 12-year John Doe. They might even risk it with you, since your friends are talented and known, it's probably worth it. But they won't risk it with the nobodies.

A person I know who frequents my business responded to an e-mail I sent out with his view on the matter:

"...The explanation given by Richardson was a little lame.  He freely admits
to ripping the idea from Shaun of the Dead and the title from the
Romero movies, but then says that any similarity to Matt and Chris's
book is merely coincidence?  But if that were entirely true then why
did they ask for an extended treatment of the book a year earlier?  If
they already had their own concept in the works why send out for
somebody else's?  The only reason I can think of is to review it for
any possible legal problems it would cause but in actuality seems to
have opened them to more liability than anything...."

I think he brings up great points about Richardson admitting to riffing on other things.