AA/SDS recasting issue...

[motorfish]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 12 2006, 11:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 12 2006, 11:00 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-KarlBud420

@Jan 12 2006, 01:50 PM

And you know this with 100% certainity?  If not you are indulging in the same behavior you were chastising everybody else for 3 pages ago...

:rolleyes

Bruce

[snapback]1157133[/snapback]​

Well nothing is 100% certain, but AA told me that very thing. Why doesn't LFL have the molds then? If they did they would have said so in the complaint. Why doesn't AA show the molds? Well there's a legal reason...

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1157361[/snapback]​

[/b]

Well, if you're under the same gag order as I am, you should be carefull about what you allude to.

 

[motorfish]

EXACTLY. That's because they are AA's molds, not LFLs. Why hasn't LFL been able to reclaim them? Because legally they cannot...they have no evidence of ownership or rights to those molds.

nuff said....

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1157120[/snapback]​

Wow. This shows that you either have a very short memory, or that you're just here to argue with people. Simply amazing.

[snapback]1157169[/snapback]​

What's your point? Show me where my memory is short.....

[snapback]1157365[/snapback]​

[/quote]

My point? Isn't that what a copyright is for? To protect against this very thing?

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by TK765@Jan 12 2006, 04:44 PM

This is the funniest thing thing you've posted yet  :lol

They don't want them back because they know they aren't original 

[snapback]1157255[/snapback]​

Then they should be able to:

1. Prove they are not original.

2. Show their original molds.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[motorfish]

I'd love to see what Microsoft would do to people who've helped design MS products sell their own versions based on the fact that they "helped" design it.

Anybody care to tell me where that case would go?

Why is this case different? AA was hired to do a job, which he did. Last I saw, I never saw an Andrew Ainsworth in the credits of any of the DVD's or VHS tapes I own.

Quite an omission on LFL's part, if he did indeed do what he claims to have done.

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 12 2006, 11:10 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 12 2006, 11:10 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-TK765

@Jan 12 2006, 04:44 PM

This is the funniest thing thing you've posted yet  :lol

They don't want them back because they know they aren't original 

[snapback]1157255[/snapback]​

Then they should be able to:

1. Prove they are not original.

2. Show their original molds.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1157370[/snapback]​

[/b]

And that proves....what? They didn't even keep most of the suits after filming, why would they keep the molds around?

How much stuff has been given away/auctioned off from LFL over the years? Original pieces even. Does that nullify LFL's copyright on said pieces, the fact that they're no longer in their possession?

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 12 2006, 06:11 PM
Most independent contractors who do work for large corporations in regards to prototyping keep  the molds they make. They do this so that the people who paid them will have to come back to them if they want more parts. Keeps competition down. AFAIK, it is an industry standard. Our vendors do it and I did it when I was on the other side.

The only thing is though, that they were a paid source for those wanting the work done. All work done by the contractor is still the legal property of the company seeking the work. That is what nondisclosure agreements are for etc. etc.. It keeps the contractors from using the property of another company for their own gain or to sell it to someone else.

Unless AA didn't sign an agreement, or put a copyright on the design before LFL, I personally see no possible means for him to have the rights to make and produce armor just because he made the originals.

Of course, this is all conjecture.

[snapback]1157322[/snapback]​

Halleluia. Someone finally figured it out.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by DARKSIDE72@Jan 12 2006, 06:44 PM

The only proof AA has as in regards to his work on SW is his word. And from what has  transpired with the recasting (MR stand GF/TE armor) and lying "original molds"  etc the man has no credibility left asside from the interminable,incessant, ramblings of a few staunch cheerleaders.


Accuracy can be measured. It is not speculative. Measurements=facts.

[snapback]1157350[/snapback]​

Think again....what do you need to establish rights? It really surprises me how little you guys know about contracts/torts.

Oh ya...forgot my cheer....hip-hip horray.

:cheers,

T

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 12 2006, 11:17 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 12 2006, 11:17 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-gavidoc

@Jan 12 2006, 06:11 PM
Most independent contractors who do work for large corporations in regards to prototyping keep  the molds they make. They do this so that the people who paid them will have to come back to them if they want more parts. Keeps competition down. AFAIK, it is an industry standard. Our vendors do it and I did it when I was on the other side.

The only thing is though, that they were a paid source for those wanting the work done. All work done by the contractor is still the legal property of the company seeking the work. That is what nondisclosure agreements are for etc. etc.. It keeps the contractors from using the property of another company for their own gain or to sell it to someone else.

Unless AA didn't sign an agreement, or put a copyright on the design before LFL, I personally see no possible means for him to have the rights to make and produce armor just because he made the originals.

Of course, this is all conjecture.

[snapback]1157322[/snapback]​

Halleluia. Someone finally figured it out.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1157375[/snapback]​

[/b]

Yes....indeed....but this is contrary to what you've been saying though, is it not?

 

[Lord Abaddon]

I'm not going to touch the whole copyright thing as frankly I just don't understand all the nuances of it, and throw the fact that there are different laws between the UK and USA on such things makes it more confusing.

From what I can see is that it comes down to exactly what the copyright entails, when it was applied, when the suits were made, the intellectual or creative (?) property rights (in the UK apparently), and more.

Believe me, the legal eagles are definitely getting their monies worth. That's why for any of us to assume anything is just plain silly as there are always little twists and turns any case can take and any decision.

As for Microsoft...there isn't a program they haven't "borrowed" that hasn't been sued against I don't think. From Apple to Novell to IBM to whomever.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 07:04 PM
Well, if you're under the same gag order as I am, you should be carefull about what you allude to.

[snapback]1157366[/snapback]​

Well I am not under a gag order as there is no reason I should be. Are you really under one?

:cheers,

T

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 12 2006, 11:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 12 2006, 11:20 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-DARKSIDE72

@Jan 12 2006, 06:44 PM

The only proof AA has as in regards to his work on SW is his word. And from what has  transpired with the recasting (MR stand GF/TE armor) and lying "original molds"  etc the man has no credibility left asside from the interminable,incessant, ramblings of a few staunch cheerleaders.


Accuracy can be measured. It is not speculative. Measurements=facts.

[snapback]1157350[/snapback]​

Think again....what do you need to establish rights? It really surprises me how little you guys know about contracts/torts.

Oh ya...forgot my cheer....hip-hip horray.

:cheers,

T

[snapback]1157377[/snapback]​

[/b]

Um...yes...you need a little thing on your work called a copyright. Very easy to obtain. Even I have a few. Last I looked, all of my LFL material had a little "c" enclosed inside of a slightly larger circle. AA had......what?

I thought a tort was a pastry of some kind.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 07:13 PM
I'd love to see what Microsoft would do to people who've helped design MS products sell their own versions based on the fact that they "helped" design it.

Anybody care to tell me where that case would go?

Why is this case different? AA was hired to do a job, which he did. Last I saw, I never saw an Andrew Ainsworth in the credits of any of the DVD's or VHS tapes I own.

Quite an omission on LFL's part, if he did indeed do what he claims to have done.

[snapback]1157372[/snapback]​

Well how many others' names were omitted from the original SW credits? Quite a few, namely because back then they didn't include secondary/tertiary contracters.

And for Microsoft, many of the programmers are able to patent sections of code they "invent"...

:cheers,

T

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 07:13 PM
I'd love to see what Microsoft would do to people who've helped design MS products sell their own versions based on the fact that they "helped" design it.

Anybody care to tell me where that case would go?

Why is this case different? AA was hired to do a job, which he did. Last I saw, I never saw an Andrew Ainsworth in the credits of any of the DVD's or VHS tapes I own.

Quite an omission on LFL's part, if he did indeed do what he claims to have done.

[snapback]1157372[/snapback]​

The above point is something that CANNOT be hammered home enough.

 

[SithLord]

Unless AA didn't sign an agreement, or put a copyright on the design before LFL, I personally see no possible means for him to have the rights to make and produce armor just because he made the originals.

Of course, this is all conjecture.

[snapback]1157322[/snapback]​

Halleluia. Someone finally figured it out.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1157375[/snapback]​

[/quote]

Yes....indeed....but this is contrary to what you've been saying though, is it not?

[snapback]1157378[/snapback]​

[/quote]

How so?

T

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 12 2006, 11:23 PM
I'm not going to touch the whole copyright thing as frankly I just don't understand all the nuances of it, and throw the fact that there are different laws between the UK and USA on such things makes it more confusing.

From what I can see is that it comes down to exactly what the copyright entails, when it was applied, when the suits were made, the intellectual or creative (?) property rights (in the UK apparently), and more.

Believe me, the legal eagles are definitely getting their monies worth.  That's why for any of us to assume anything is just plain silly as there are always little twists and turns any case can take and any decision.

As for Microsoft...there isn't a program they haven't "borrowed" that hasn't been sued against I don't think.  From Apple to Novell to IBM to whomever.

[snapback]1157382[/snapback]​

Copyright is very easy and straightforward to understand. If you copyright something, then it is yours. In any country. You can't legaly pirate a Japanese Sony product in the US, or Europe, or China, or Mexico, and so on and so on.

Why is this situatiuon any different?

 

[Lord Abaddon]

BTW...that reminds me. We talk about AA's snowball chance in hell. Well Novell taken on Microsoft more than once and won, the only company to do so (and they are going for yet another one.). Talk about the small guy winning because the Goliath didn't dot all his i's and cover all his t's.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by motorfish+Jan 12 2006, 06:29 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(motorfish @ Jan 12 2006, 06:29 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 12 2006, 11:23 PM
I'm not going to touch the whole copyright thing as frankly I just don't understand all the nuances of it, and throw the fact that there are different laws between the UK and USA on such things makes it more confusing.

From what I can see is that it comes down to exactly what the copyright entails, when it was applied, when the suits were made, the intellectual or creative (?) property rights (in the UK apparently), and more.

Believe me, the legal eagles are definitely getting their monies worth.  That's why for any of us to assume anything is just plain silly as there are always little twists and turns any case can take and any decision.

As for Microsoft...there isn't a program they haven't "borrowed" that hasn't been sued against I don't think.  From Apple to Novell to IBM to whomever.

[snapback]1157382[/snapback]​

Copyright is very easy and straightforward to understand. If you copyright something, then it is yours. In any country. You can't legaly pirate a Japanese Sony product in the US, or Europe, or China, or Mexico, and so on and so on.

Why is this situatiuon any different?

[snapback]1157389[/snapback]​

[/b]

Dan, come on, if it was that easy you wouldn't have constant lawsuits against copyright holders for infringing, stealing, etc. of ideas, similar concepts, plagarism, etc. We all know the law isn't that black and white, it never has been.

EDIT: Blatant spelling mistake.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Novell may not be MS, but they are not exactly AA, either. They have deep pockets as well, just not MS deep.

 

[SithLord]

Think again....what do you need to establish rights? It really surprises me how little you guys know about contracts/torts.

Oh ya...forgot my cheer....hip-hip horray.

:cheers,

T

[snapback]1157377[/snapback]​

Um...yes...you need a little thing on your work called a copyright. Very easy to obtain. Even I have a few. Last I looked, all of my LFL material had a little "c" enclosed inside of a slightly larger circle. AA had......what?

I thought a tort was a pastry of some kind.

[snapback]1157384[/snapback]​

[/quote]

:lol I love _tortes_ mmmm.....

Well I'm working on a $15k patent myself so I know a little bit about this...

The point is, LFL has zip to show that AA signed off rights. Zippo.

:cheers,

T

 

[motorfish]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 12 2006, 11:32 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 12 2006, 11:32 PM)</div>

Originally posted by motorfish@Jan 12 2006, 06:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 12 2006, 11:23 PM
I'm not going to touch the whole copyright thing as frankly I just don't understand all the nuances of it, and throw the fact that there are different laws between the UK and USA on such things makes it more confusing.

From what I can see is that it comes down to exactly what the copyright entails, when it was applied, when the suits were made, the intellectual or creative (?) property rights (in the UK apparently), and more.

Believe me, the legal eagles are definitely getting their monies worth.  That's why for any of us to assume anything is just plain silly as there are always little twists and turns any case can take and any decision.

As for Microsoft...there isn't a program they haven't "borrowed" that hasn't been sued against I don't think.  From Apple to Novell to IBM to whomever.

[snapback]1157382[/snapback]​

Copyright is very easy and straightforward to understand. If you copyright something, then it is yours. In any country. You can't legaly pirate a Japanese Sony product in the US, or Europe, or China, or Mexico, and so on and so on.

Why is this situatiuon any different?

[snapback]1157389[/snapback]​

Dan, come on, if it was that easy you wouldn't have constant lawsuits against copyright holders for infringing, stealing, etc. of ideas, similar concepts, plagarism, etc. We all know the law isn't that black and white, it never has been.

EDIT: Blatant spelling mistake.

[snapback]1157396[/snapback]​

[/b]

It is as easy as that. That's the exact reason why we have constant lawsuits over copyright. It doesn't stop people from challenging it all of the time, through people trying to change subtle things here and there about said product, wording things a little bit differently, selling it under the guise as something else. There's absolutely no limit to what people will do in order to get around a copyright if they think they have a chance of doing so and getting away with it.