(from http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--freedomtowerlawsu1108nov08,0,7302435.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire)

NEW YORK -- A former Yale University architectural student sued the designers of the World Trade Center site's planned Freedom Tower on Monday, saying the designs for the skyscraper violate copyrights of those he created at school.

Thomas Shine, of Brookline, Mass., was seeking unspecified damages in U.S. District Court in Manhattan for what he said was the theft of designs for buildings he had titled "Olympic Tower" and "Shine '99."

Named as defendants in the lawsuit were David Childs and the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP. A message left with Childs at the firm was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit alleged that the Freedom Tower was "strikingly similar" to Shine's designs for a Manhattan building for the proposed 2012 Olympic Games in New York.

It said Childs saw the designs when he served in December 1999 on a panel of jurists invited by the Yale School of Architecture to evaluate the students' work.

According to the lawsuit, an annual Yale School of Architecture magazine featuring selected student works included images of Shine's Olympic Tower with a comment by Childs: "It is a very beautiful shape. You took the skin and developed it around the form _ great!"

The Olympic design featured a twisting tower with a twisting structural grid and a textured facade, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleged that the design for the Freedom Tower shown to the public in December 2003 incorporated a structural grid identical to Shine's Olympic Tower. It alleged that the Freedom Tower's facade is "strikingly similar" to the Olympic Tower design, with an elongated symmetrical diamond pattern.

The cornerstone was laid on July 4 for the Freedom Tower, which will be the first skyscraper to go up at the 16-acre trade center site.

The final design of the Freedom Tower is a compromise of designs by Childs and architect Daniel Libeskind, a designer of the master plan for redevelopment of the trade center site. Libeskind had envisioned a 1,776-foot tower with a spiraling shape that echoed the Statue of Liberty.


Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

shouldn't libeskind be sued?

shouldn't libeskind be sued?

Libeskind didn't design the Freedom Tower. Childs did. The only part of the FT design that came from Libeskind is the spire on top of the latticework.

Interesting, I wanna see the student's design. He at least better have had the idea of wind turbines in it if he's gonna sue.

^I don't think so. If the structural system is-or is almost-identical to the FT that might be enough. That includes a hollow lattice pinnicle. Adding gimmicks like wind turbines has nothing to do with the architecture.

Well, here's one of the student's designs:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/images/11_10_2004_1251212511.jpg

(From this article:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=27255)

At the end of that article there's this passage:

While Shine is demanding monetary compensation and a judgment that Childs and his firm violated his copyrights, he is not asking Childs to change the design of Freedom Tower or to stop the skyscraper's construction, Baum said.

"We just want fair recognition for Mr. Shine's contribution and fair compensation for the work he created," Baum said.

...Which leads me to believe that Shine is just trying to get himself known as "the architect who designed the Freedom Tower."

However, I guess it depends on how similar the structural systems are.

They dont look a damn thing alike. Thats like if some one made a boxy looking building in the 50s and sued anyone who made a box in the 60s. Give me a break.

wow come on..

Those two are fundementally different. The Freedom tower is essentially a box with two diagonally opposite corners angled inwards, thus achieving the angled yet rounded shape of the FT.

The student's design is a twisted...well...I'm not sure what thing originally was, but it is quite different from the bastard child of Childs/Libeskind.

Well if you ask me, the basis for the exterior framing is the same, however here is the difference, (in my opinion) the students tower, for one is most likely NOT an office tower, i think the diagrid structure of the student's is the entire support system, (look's like belt trusses at certain intervals, probably an observation tower.) i believe that the SOM (Childs) structure will (internaly) resemble a standard highrise core system, (i.e. concrete, or steel, transferring interior/exterior loads to foundation, with the diagrid system handling exterior wind /gravity loads, in other words the SOM plan uses the diagrid as a supplementery system, as opposed to the entire system as in the students tower. and i still firmly believe the renderings of the freedom tower, show the structural system alot less substantial than it will actually be. unless the student copyrited the diagrid system idea itself, i don't think he has a case!!!!!............by the way the FT structural system is VERY similar to the original WTC system.

The student's style is better, but I don't think FT is similar at all. He might as well sue Turning torso (Malmo, Sweden) as well.

I agree vid, the students tower is VERY similar to turning torso, (i.e. all 4 walls twisting upward). in the students case, 4 reducing to 2 and those becoming a common roof,(or in this case a cornice) all twistng. (at least that's what it looks like from this single view). twisting torso does the same thing but retains a flat roof, (i.e. 4 corners instead of 2). the FT only has 2 walls twisting (east and west face) and also retains a flat roof, as the north/south faces are vertical with one vertical corner each. so my assesment, FT core loaded, exterior tube loaded system. turning torso, core loaded system. student tower, exterior tube loaded system. (at least as far as i can see from one photo).

A few more angles of the FT, both in comparison to the FT's predicessors.

http://img113.exs.cx/img113/2853/TT-FTDiagram1.jpg http://img74.exs.cx/img74/460/TT-FTside.jpg

^ from those depictions the lattice work at the top doesnt look to bad. Still we're losing alot.

the two buildings doesn't really resemble each other that much. but i find the student's design to be quite similar to the "twisting tower that fades into the sky" proposed by childs shortly after libeskind's original plan won approval. in both cases, the tower's top faces a different direction than the base.

however, the twistiness of child's plan was toned down when it was mixed with libeskind's version of the freedom tower. so, even though the shape of the freedom tower's top is somehow radically different from that of the base, it's no longer comparable to the building that student proposal. that, along with the diamond-themed facade, are pretty much all the two buildings have in common.

still, even though i find the student's claim to be somewhat absurd, any news that shed bad light on the freedom tower is welcoming for me...

Looks more like SWFC, but the kid has a point.

Comparisons from Archinet of the Freedom tower and the student's design:

http://www.archinect.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Shine%20v%20SOM%201%20%28low%20res%29.jpg

http://www.archinect.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Shine%20v%20SOM%204%20%28low%20res%29.jpg

http://www.archinect.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_Shine%20v%20SOM%206%20%28low%20res%29.jpg

http://www.archinect.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_Shine%20v%20SOM%207%20%28low%20res%29.jpg

Well, at least the student design doesn't seem to have the top 350 feet as an empty shell.

hmm, now that more detailed renderings are out, the student does seem to have more of a point.

yeah, it's definitely a better alternative than the freedom tower, but it's still nothing compared to the twins.

omg till like 3 weeks ago i had no idea freedom tower's facade looked that way.. now my support is gone from it. (probably the only support it had from a constant-NYC forumer)

Yale Daily News

Tower designs to test copyright law

Published Monday, March 28, 2005

BY YASSMIN SADEGHI
Staff Reporter

The outcome of a copyright lawsuit filed by a Yale School of Architecture graduate over the proposed design of the Freedom Tower likely will hinge on whether the court believes there is a "substantial similarity" between the two designs, legal experts said.

Thomas Shine ARC '00 alleges that the design by David Childs '63 ARC '67 for the tower to be placed at the former World Trade Center site was copied from his work. In order to prove this allegation, Shine will need to show that the design elements in his plan are distinctive and creative, which the experts said would qualify his design for architectural copyright protection.

Shine would also have to prove that Childs had access to his designs, but Childs has already admitted that he saw Shine's works when he served on a panel of jurists invited to evaluate students' work for a studio class at Yale in 1999.

The Freedom Tower case is one of about several dozen architectural copyright cases that have been filed in the last 15 years, most of which have dealt with single-family homes, experts said. But what distinguishes it from the rest is that it is believed to be the first architectural copyright case that involves a skyscraper.

The case promises to be the "first big case" in architectural copyright infringement, said Jessica Litman, a copyright law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.

"It's because of the norms of the field of architecture," Litman said. "If you're talking about making a monumental building, nobody wants to design a monumental building that looks a lot like somebody else's monumental building."

Legal experts predicted it would be difficult for Shine to produce a smoking gun -- that Childs directly copied his plans. Instead, they said, Shine could establish that Childs copied the plans by proving first that Childs had access to his designs and second that there is a substantial similarity between Shine's plans and Childs' Freedom Tower design.

A central question will lie before the jury: Are the works "substantially" similar? To resolve the issue, the court likely will home in on the unique and creative elements of the designs, disregarding commonplace stock elements, since only original elements receive protection under copyright law, the legal experts said. The court will have to determine whether the buildings' design elements, such as the elongated diamond pattern and twisting tower, are unique.

"That will be what things will hinge on, whether this is a novel configuration or whether the common features are just stock," said William Fisher, an intellectual property law professor at Harvard University. "So I wouldn't venture how it's going to come out, but just on first glance the two buildings are unusually similar."

While most standard elements may not receive protection under copyright law, a unique combination of those stock features might receive protection. For example, even if the court considers the elongated diamond pattern and the twisting tower to be stock elements, the combination of these two elements in one design could be unique enough to be protected by the law.

Ron Klemencic, chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, an international non-profit organization based in Chicago, said he is familiar with several buildings that use either an elongated diamond pattern or a twisting tower. But Klemencic said he does not know of any buildings that use the design elements together, like both Shine's plan and Childs' Freedom Tower design.

The Freedom Tower's combination of elements is unique, Yale architecture professor James Axley said, noting that he has not conducted a formal survey of building designs.

"My sense is these buildings represent a unique deviation from what has been built throughout the world up to this time," Axley said. "Both buildings have twisted rectangular prisms, slightly attenuated tops, lattice-grid structural systems -- I see those features both as being relatively unique in that combination."

In architectural copyright cases, juries usually determine whether or not substantial similarities exist between two designs based on the impressions of an ordinary observer rather than an architecture expert, said Robert Brauneis, the co-director of George Washington Law School's Dean Dinwoodey Center for Intellectual Property Studies.

Lawyers in the Freedom Tower case can turn to a 2002 decision for precedent on copyright infringement in public buildings. Architect Elena Sturdza sued the United Arab Emirates government and a UAE-commissioned architect for copying a design she had submitted to the UAE in a competition. After winning the competition, she worked for two years to develop plans for a new embassy building in Washington, D.C. for the UAE before the government cut off communications with her.

Sturdza filed suit after noticing that the UAE had submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission an embassy design substantially similar to her own design. While a district court found the two designs were not similar enough, the U.S. Court of Appeals overruled the lower court's decision.

"[The designs are] sufficiently similar with respect to both individual elements and overall look and feel for a reasonable jury to conclude that the two are substantially similar," the appeals court wrote in its decision.

The two courts' conflicting interpretations on the UAE embassy design reveal the degree of subjectivity that comes with determining the level of similarity and judging whether a particular design element -- or combination of features -- is unique and creative, especially when a jury uses a layman's perspective.

While the legal standard for architectural copyright infringement is clear, experts said it remains unknown the position the Southern District Court of Manhattan will take with regard to the Freedom Tower case.

i still can't believe this is being taken seriously by anyone.... especially considering anything that the student produced at yale would actually be the intellectual property of yale...and not the student

If the student hypothetically won the law-suit, does that mean that childs is fined or that the design has to be changed?

I hope it would end Child's career. Not only is Freedom Tower a bad design, he had to steal the idea.

Well, the work of David Childs in the late 80's was much more better than any of his work has been over the last 10 years. He had been working on the Columbus Circle project for more than 10 years, the earlyier design's where quite good, but look what ended up being built. The Time Warner Center, is quite possibly the uglyest and cheapest looking highrise project i've ever seen. And the New York, SOM office proposal for the World Trade Center, what the hell was that???. If Childs is up to lose anything it should be that he be dethroned as a design principle at SOM, NYC (and replaced by Craig Hartman from SOM's San Francisco office, this guy CAN design office tower's).

From Curbed...

More Childs Play at Freedom Tower?

The stunning revelation of the new design for One Vesey Street has brought the 'snipes fluttering from their nests to sing songs of, yes, Freedom. Below we have a reminiscence from the field—perhaps, given the details, from an actual reporter. [Note to source: Will you please tell us what "off the record" means?]

Sometime last year or the year before—time flies when you're writing about Ground Zero—I paid a visit to SOM and interviewed David Childs in a conference room that was like a warehouse full of little Freedom Towers. There were models representing every iteration, souvenirs of the epic struggle between Libeskind and SOM. Childs showed me the model he preferred, not the chosen design, but a somewhat more conventional torquing tower. The photo in today's Times looks an awful lot like the tower Childs really wanted way back when. Which tends to reinforce my suspicion that the security issues with the tower served Childs' purposes. He now has the design he prefers and has wriggled out of that annoying lawsuit regarding the old Freedom Tower. And the new design has no bird-slaughtering turbines. It's win-win-win.

See, too, the related blowout controversy sweeping the world of ideas and ably documented here by our very own keepers. Is it possible David Childs went from outright theft in FT2 (litigation regarding which continues), to, uh, casual reappropriation in FT3? Just this morning, yet more 'snipes tell us, Governor Pataki called him "an outstanding architect and an outstanding person." So that just about cinches it.

childs isn't losing any sleep over that lawsuit... the person bringing it isn't even the owner of the material...

and if any court ever support the ownership of intellectual material such as a building design it would be a free for all in the architecture world...

not only is there plenty of people 'influenced' by others built work, there is plenty of influence by unbuilt works... and its not like academia has never stolen from the profession...

recently finishing architecture school i can tell you there is absolutely no lack of students ripping off built and unbuilt projects, so i'd be willing to bet it could be proven pretty easily that the plantiff in this case is guilty of the same thing he is accusing childs of...

the people who write this drivel need to brush up on their high rise history... SOM would be very much richer if they got to sue every architect that copied one of their designs...built or unbuilt

i also find it ironic that those on here making a deal out of it are the same ones supporting copying the WTC....that twin tower plan is nothing but a rip off...but you suppor that???

i don't really see anyone making a big deal out of this on this thread, except for 1 or 2 forumers. it's just looking at news and commenting on it. u call that making a big deal?

this scenario is just an example of bad architecture ripping off another bad architecture. all i have to say is that an architect like childs would do a better job in deciding what design to jack, and jacking a student's design is not always a smart idea. besides, i don't think he even come close to liking that hybrid design in which pataki shoved that off-centered spire and other libeskind elements down his throat. who knows, someone might have told him to add those foster-like bracings, because if he really liked it, he would've kept it in the design of the latest FT release.

but the main point is, that pathetic childs-libeskind hybrid architectural horror had been thrown out of ground zero (psssshh...it's about time they did that too), along with the x-bracings, so it doesn't matter at all anymore.

but you still hold up the rebuilt towers as some architectural tour de force...

i just think it is a stupid case... especially if you have any familiarity with the yale architecture program... half the shit produced in those studios shows up in some rock star architects work 2 years later... it is the nature of the program... master/apprentice

New York Times
August 11, 2005

Suit Claiming Similarities In Tower Design Can Proceed

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

A federal judge ruled yesterday that there were enough similarities between David M. Childs's 2003 design for the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site and a 1999 student architectural project that a lawsuit against Mr. Childs for copyright violation could proceed.

The student, Thomas Shine, now an architect in Brookline, Mass., sued Mr. Childs and his firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, last year. He charged that they had copied Freedom Tower from Olympic Tower, Mr. Shine's project at the Yale School of Architecture, which Mr. Childs saw and admired as a jurist critiquing students' work. Skidmore denied the allegation. And the resemblance.

Judge Michael B. Mukasey, chief judge of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, said in his ruling yesterday that some lay observers "might find that the Freedom Tower's twisting shape and undulating diamond-shaped facade make it substantially similar to Olympic Tower, and therefore an improper appropriation" of copyrighted artistic expression.

On the other hand, the judge acknowledged that it is "possible, even likely, that some ordinary observers might not find the two towers to be substantially similar," as Skidmore had asserted in moving to have the case dismissed.

The Freedom Tower design in question - a torqued and tapered skyscraper with a lacy diagonal structural network known as a diagrid - has been withdrawn because of security objections raised by the New York Police Department.

Mr. Childs has already designed the replacement: a glass-and-steel structure rising like an obelisk from an almost impermeable 200-foot concrete base. So it does not seem that the outcome of this case will affect the construction schedule of Freedom Tower.

But it is one more cloud over a project that was born in controversy two years ago, when it became clear that the commercial leaseholder at the trade center site, Larry A. Silverstein, did not want his signature skyscraper to be designed by Daniel Libeskind, the master planner for the site. He chose Mr. Childs instead.

What followed, in the second half of 2003, was an awkward and sometimes stormy collaboration between Mr. Childs and Mr. Libeskind that resulted in a design to which Mr. Shine, 41, has now staked a claim. He practices in the firm of Choi & Shine.

Mr. Shine's lawyer, Andrew Baum of Darby & Darby, said he and his client were thrilled by Judge Mukasey's ruling.

"Ironically, even though it was a well-known architect who came out on the short end of this, I think it's a victory for architects and the profession of architecture," Mr. Baum said yesterday. "The court recognized that architectural works are entitled to copyright protection just like any other type of creative work."

However, Judge Mukasey agreed with Skidmore that there were no significant similarities between Freedom Tower and another student project by Mr. Shine called Shine '99. "There is no evidence to suggest that Childs would have thought of the idea of a twisting tower only by viewing Shine '99," the judge wrote in his 27-page ruling.

A spokeswoman for Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Elizabeth H. Kubany, said in an e-mail message yesterday: "We are pleased that the judge has decided that one of Shine's two claims was not worthy to go to trial. We are confident that we will prevail on the remaining issue."

She noted that some exhibits submitted by Mr. Shine showed Olympic Tower twisting in a clockwise direction, where his actual model twisted counterclockwise. "When S.O.M.'s counsel pointed out that Mr. Shine had doctored three of these images to exaggerate the similarities between the two designs, his attorney was forced to withdraw them," Ms. Kubany said. "I think this speaks volumes about the merits of his case."

Judge Mukasey wrote that a plaintiff like Mr. Shine "may prove actual copying by showing that defendants had access to his copyrighted works, and that similarities that suggest copying exist between the protected works and the alleged infringing work."

Olympic Tower and Shine '99 emerged from a studio in skyscraper design taught by the architect Cesar Pelli. The object was to propose a skyscraper for the 2012 Olympics. On Dec. 9, 1999, Mr. Shine presented his designs for a twisting tower with a diagonal column grid to a panel including Mr. Childs, who was quoted in the architecture school magazine Retrospecta as having said to Mr. Shine, "It is a very beautiful shape." Mr. Shine registered his projects with the Copyright Office in 2004.

Comparing Olympic Tower and Freedom Tower, Judge Mukasey said any lay observer would notice that each tapered and twisted; each had an undulating, textured, diamond-patterned facade; and each had a diamond pattern at the base. That combination, he said, gave them a "similar 'total concept and feel' that is immediately apparent even to an untrained judicial eye."

In their motion to dismiss, Mr. Childs and Skidmore said, "In the late 1990's - around the time Shine was at Yale - there was a virtual tidal wave of twisting tower projects." They added, "While Shine may have decided to ride this wave when he began his studio project at Yale, he was not the progenitor of the concept."

Supporting their motion, the architect Richard Meier said he found "no significant resemblance" between the designs, nor any basis for Mr. Shine's copyright.

"It is ironic, to say the least," Mr. Meier wrote, "that the plaintiff should claim rights over a mode of construction - the perimeter structural diagrid - that was effectively invented and developed by S.O.M."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Reading the article it looks like Mr. Shine doesn't stand a chance. How can he prove without a reasonable doubt that Childs stole the design? There's just no evidence to support that, plus one can cite many buildings that look similar in one way or another.

This is also interesting...

She noted that some exhibits submitted by Mr. Shine showed Olympic Tower twisting in a clockwise direction, where his actual model twisted counterclockwise. "When S.O.M.'s counsel pointed out that Mr. Shine had doctored three of these images to exaggerate the similarities between the two designs, his attorney was forced to withdraw them," Ms. Kubany said. "I think this speaks volumes about the merits of his case."

Anyway, the Freedom tower's redesigned so it's basically a non issue impacting the development at the site.

Here's an image accompanying the article:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/08/11/nyregion/11rebuild2_lg.jpg
A facade section of David M. Childs's 2003 Freedom Tower design, left, is compared with Thomas Shine's 1999 Olympic Tower project, in a rendering Mr. Shine prepared for his lawsuit against Mr. Childs.

doctoring photos...thats great...

there is no chance this guy is going to win this... hell he didn't even register his designs until 2004...

i'd like to hear cesar pelli weigh in on this issue as well, b/c as his professor i'm sure he had substantial influence on the design considering the studio format that is used at yale

yep, esp with the fact that the old FT design now have as little of a chance of being built as shine's design.

man, that olympic tower's facade sure looks sinister in low light.

I have a feeling the FT won't be built for a while, if it at all, once a hurdle is solved, another one comes up. Over and over and over again. :bash:

Another article...

Boston Globe

At Ground Zero, a towering copycat? On Freedom Tower, he says, no free ride
A young architect says his idea stolen

By Kennan Knudson, Globe Correspondent | September 11, 2005

He was reading a newspaper on his way to his internship at a local architecture firm. As his train crossed the Charles River, a stamp-sized, black-and-white picture caught his eye. He pulled the paper closer, wondering whether it was what he thought.

A few days later, in December 2003, Thomas Shine saw a larger picture, and then he was sure. The original design for downtown Manhattan's Freedom Tower, the soaring skyscraper meant to replace the World Trade Center and echo the Statue of Liberty, looked too much like a model he designed four years before as an architecture student at Yale.

Within a year, he sued.

''I felt the dual emotions of being thrilled and cheated," said Shine, 41, who now lives in Brookline and works in town with his wife at a firm called Choi + Shine. ''If someone came and took something off my desk, [no one] would hesitate to say that's wrong. This case is about principle: Do I have the right to the protection of my own work?"

Last month, a federal judge ruled that enough similarities exist between David M. Childs's 2003 Freedom Tower design and Shine's 1999 student architectural project that a copyright-violation lawsuit Shine filed last year against Childs and his firm, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, could continue.

Shine argued that Childs copied his Olympic Tower project at the Yale School of Architecture, which Childs saw as a jurist reviewing students' work and complimented for its ''very beautiful shape," according to Retrospecta, Yale's architecture school magazine.

In allowing the case to go forward, Michael B. Mukasey, chief judge of the US District Court in Manhattan, said in his ruling that the two concepts have a ''similar 'total concept and feel' that is immediately apparent even to an untrained judicial eye." But he added: It's ''possible, even likely, that some ordinary observers might not find the two towers to be substantially similar."

A spokeswoman at Skidmore argued that any resemblance is a coincidence.

''With any high-profile project, there are claims of plagiarism," said Elizabeth Kubany, the spokeswoman. ''We believe that [Skidmore] will prevail in court, because many of the design elements of the Freedom Towers are ones that David Childs and [Skidmore] as a firm have been exploring for years."

In court documents, Skidmore lawyers argue Childs and Shine were merely influenced by the same architectural precedents. They cite examples of other buildings that use a ''diagrid" support structure and the twisting and weaving facade of both Childs's Freedom Tower and Shine's Olympic Tower.

''Granted, there are similarities . . . but those similarities derive solely from the fact that each is -- or purports to be -- a modernist skyscraper, constructed of steel with some visual warping and a textured glass skin," argue Childs's lawyers, Richard Williamson and Marcia Paul, in their response to Shine's complaint.

They also argued Shine's copyright is invalid because he didn't register it until 2004, after he saw the design of Freedom Tower.

However, Carl Sapers, a professor at Harvard Design School and a specialist in architectural law, noted that a copyright exists from the time a work is created, and an author only has to register a copyright before filing a lawsuit.

Shine's charges, even if unfounded, reflect an all-too-common problem in academia: architecture professors stealing their students' work, he said. ''I've always been concerned about the exploitation of students," he said.

Henry Reeder, an architect at the Cambridge firm Architectural Resources Cambridge, said young architects often think they have ownership of an idea that's just that: an idea, not something they can copyright. ''That's a little bit of what I . . . feel this issue is all going to come out to," he said, adding that for the judge to continue the case, the similarities must be substantial.

Whatever comes of the dispute, the issue is now moot.

Childs's original design was cast aside after police raised security concerns. Childs has since unveiled a design for a glass-and-steel replacement, which looks more like one of the Twin Towers, with a 200-foot concrete base.

Still, even if the lawsuit has no effect on the Freedom Tower's ultimate design, Shine has decided to continue with the suit. He wants fair credit and compensation for his work, he said, and he argues his stand makes a point for young architects who may find themselves in a similar situation.

But he insists he never intended to delay or halt construction at Ground Zero, noting he never filed an injunction to stop building the disputed design, he said.

In an interview at a Brookline coffee shop, Shine explained how he came up with his design during a Yale seminar taught by Cesar Pelli, a renowned architect who required his students to create a unique skyscraper and present their ideas before a jury of top-flight architects.

He began designing a building with a twisting shape to the facade, because it has been a problem that has long challenged architects. Shine designed a diamond-shaped support structure for the building, he said, because such buildings can't rely on straight vertical columns.

After months of work drafting a detailed design, Shine's presentation went unusually well, he said. ''It's an intense, intense experience," he said. ''Your heart is pounding, you're exhausted and nervous, and [the jurors] aren't gentle. They can be quite cruel."

Shine's colleagues applauded his work, he said, and the young architect took joy in Childs's praise. ''It is a very beautiful shape," Childs told Shine, according to Retrospecta. ''You took the skin and developed it around the form -- great!"

It was the last time the two communicated -- that is, until Shine's lawyer contacted Childs last year about the familiar design of the Freedom Tower.

After working for several Boston firms over three years, Shine and his wife started their firm in late 2003. They've worked on mostly small projects, Shine said, including a home renovation in Brookline and a cafeteria in Cambridge.

For months, Shine said, he sought to negotiate with Skidmore for credit and compensation. He said he told officials at the firm that he would let the matter go, if they could prove Childs didn't copy his design.

Skidmore wouldn't negotiate, and they insisted Childs wasn't inspired by Shine's Olympic Tower. Shine filed suit in November 2004.

Discovery for the case begins soon.