AA/SDS recasting issue...

Ding Ding Ding.

After a little research, I believe this is the longest running thread on the RPF (38 pages)

2nd goes to the Obi Wan emitter thread (36 pages, 711 posts)

OT I know, but I just thought I'd share it with everyone.

Cheers,

Kraig

Edit- added post count on Obi thread.
 
Exoray, with respect youÂ’re not a lawyer (let alone one learned in the intricacies of international litigation) so can only give a laymanÂ’s view on the way you believe the case will proceed. Nothing wrong with that but comments like "Looks pretty clean and simple" are probably unwise :)

My personal view is that if the scenario you outlined was so clear-cut, then AAÂ’s lawyers (the well respected Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) would have considered and planned for it already. I really donÂ’t think they would have led their client down a path which would so clearly lead him to financial ruin without knowing at least something about the relevant laws. And dare I say perhaps a little more than those present here?

ThereÂ’s clearly more to this than meets the eye.

Ding. DingÂ…..Round three. :lol

Cheers

Jez

Edit sp
 
Nothing wrong with that but comments like "Looks pretty clean and simple" are probably unwise
[snapback]1184010[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

That was in regard to a single sentence, care to elaborate on how else it could be interpreted? I stand by it in the context I posted it in regards to the single sentense below...

In questions relating to the jurisdiction of the court of the State of origin, the authority addressed shall be bound by the findings of fact on which that court based its jurisdiction, unless the decision was rendered by default.
Click to expand...

I really don’t think they would have led their client down a path which would so clearly lead him to financial ruin without knowing at least something about the relevant laws.
Click to expand...

Lawyers are only as good as how honest and upfront you are with them, this became obvious with his US council who based arguements on lies that he told them... So without knowing all the details of what AA has told his council who could guess what they are basing the path of defense on... And you bring up the name of a legal firm, is this really his council in this case, or did he simply ask for an opinion?

Everyday all over the world lawyers lead clients down paths that destroy them, so to suggest it never happens is only silly there is almost always a losing side in every case...
 
Agreed, but all I was saying is that it would be strange for RPC (UK copyright lawyers listed in the SDS Legal papers you posted) to advise him on a course of action which you believe is so doomed to failure.

If your scenario is correct and AA lied to them (and has presumably come clean now), then clearly the best solution would be to negotiate a settlement with LFL, not simply allow the case to fall into default (and have the UK courts recover the US court-applied award). IMO this defies logic.

My point is that IMO its maybe not so clear cut, and neither you nor I have the international legal expertise to make anything other than a semi-informed opinion on how this is likely to pan out. ThatÂ’s all :)

Cheers

Jez
 
Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Feb 14 2006, 04:15 PM
Agreed, but all I was saying is that it would be strange for RPC (UK copyright lawyers listed in the SDS Legal papers you posted) to advise him on a course of action which you believe is so doomed to failure.

If your scenario is correct and AA lied to them (and has presumably come clean now), then clearly the best solution would be to negotiate a settlement with LFL, not simply allow the case to fall into default (and have the UK courts recover the US court-applied award). IMO this defies logic.

My point is that IMO its maybe not so clear cut, and neither you nor I have the international legal expertise to make anything other than a semi-informed opinion on how this is likely to pan out. ThatÂ’s all :)

Cheers

Jez
[snapback]1184098[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Whatever. This case IS clear cut. AA is f*cked, right proper, through every major and minor orifice. Anyone with two eyes can see that.
Maybe if the guy wasn't so shady, I'd feel differently about this, but for some reason, I just can't feel sorry for the guy.

What goes round' comes round'. And as was said in the Big Lebowski: "Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes, well, it eats you."

Bon appétit.
 
Originally posted by motorfish@Feb 14 2006, 01:27 PM
Whatever. This case IS clear cut. AA is f*cked, right proper, through every major and minor orifice. Anyone with two eyes can see that.
Maybe if the guy wasn't so shady, I'd feel differently about this, but for some reason, I just can't feel sorry for the guy.
Click to expand...


Well that was certainly an informed appraisal of AA's legal situation ;).

If the case is so clear cut then lay it out for us, orfice and all, otherwise it's just another ill-informed opinion.

There is much more to this case than the RPF will ever know, either in the legal sense or I'm sure in the practical sense. Frankly I'm grateful for that because the drama here over the case is getting old.

I don't feel sorry for AA at all, rather for you guys who like to pass judgement in a prop forum on legal matters you know little of....

This is what I believe it all boils down to:

Where in the legal papers provided by LFL is it plainly stated that they created and are in possession of the original molds?



:cheers,

Thomas
 
Originally posted by SithLord@Feb 14 2006, 08:41 PM

This is what I believe it all boils down to:

Where in the legal papers provided by LFL is it plainly stated that they created and are in possession of the original molds?

Click to expand...


Moot point and immaterial question.

If you have a case, you fight it.

If you don't.... ;)




Russ
 
Originally posted by Darth Bill@Feb 14 2006, 04:54 PM

Moot point and immaterial question.

If you have a case, you fight it.

If you don't....  ;)


Russ
[snapback]1184325[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Funny you think that...LFL's entire credibility relies on that one question.

If you have a case, you fight it in the UK.

Why present your full case in a jurisdiction it doesn't belong?

;)

:cheers,

Thomas
 
This is what I believe it all boils down to:

Where in the legal papers provided by LFL is it plainly stated that they created and are in possession of the original molds?
Click to expand...

And the reverse for AA?

What is actually boils down to is Copyright and Trademark infringment, plain and simple...

AA has ZERO defense at the Trademark infringment, put aside all the Copyright issues and the Trademark issues are still plenty enough to sink him...
 
Originally posted by SithLord+Feb 14 2006, 08:41 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Feb 14 2006, 08:41 PM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-motorfish
Click to expand...
@Feb 14 2006, 01:27 PM
Whatever. This case IS clear cut. AA is f*cked, right proper, through every major and minor orifice. Anyone with two eyes can see that.
Maybe if the guy wasn't so shady, I'd feel differently about this, but for some reason, I just can't feel sorry for the guy.
Click to expand...


Well that was certainly an informed appraisal of AA's legal situation ;).

If the case is so clear cut then lay it out for us, orfice and all, otherwise it's just another ill-informed opinion.

There is much more to this case than the RPF will ever know, either in the legal sense or I'm sure in the practical sense. Frankly I'm grateful for that because the drama here over the case is getting old.

I don't feel sorry for AA at all, rather for you guys who like to pass judgement in a prop forum on legal matters you know little of....

This is what I believe it all boils down to:

Where in the legal papers provided by LFL is it plainly stated that they created and are in possession of the original molds?



:cheers,

Thomas
[snapback]1184311[/snapback]​
[/b]
Click to expand...


Cheers. ^_^
 
Originally posted by SithLord@Feb 14 2006, 09:01 PM

Funny you think that...LFL's entire credibility relies on that one question.

If you have a case, you fight it in the UK.

Why present your full case in a jurisdiction it doesn't belong?

;)

:cheers,

Thomas
Click to expand...


Uh-buh-? Wha...?

"Entire credibility"..??

"Jurisdiction"...???

To where...? To who...?

The fans...?

Once again, immaterial.

The courts?

"Credibility"? "Jurisdiction"..??

Still not getting it, are we?

Lucas ain't gonna bring the fight back to the UK.

And he doesn't have to.

He set the stage. He'll get the judgement and it'll be enforced under that pesky little Hague Convention. :lol

Like I said before, "If you've got a case, you fight it."

Think of it "schoolyard-rules" style...

One kid picks a fight with another and calls him out to the schoolyard after school....
The other kid stays in the classroom and says the bully has to come back upstairs and fight him in front of the teacher or there's no fight.

The bully flips him the bird, calls him a chickens**t and goes home.

The rest of the kids who gathered for the fight call the classroom kid a chickens**t as well and that stigma follows him for the rest of his days.

The only difference here is that Lucas has grounds to get the "teacher" to deliver the asswhipping to the student in his own classroom. :lol :lol




Russ
 
Originally posted by SithLord@Feb 14 2006, 03:41 PM
I don't feel sorry for AA at all, rather for you guys who like to pass judgement in a prop forum on legal matters you know little of....

This is what I believe it all boils down to:
Click to expand...

:lol Now, now Thomas don't feel sorry for yourself. :lol
 
To quote exoray (bold mine):

Again it is dealt with as an unpaid debt and collection suit, so the UK court will rule on the validity of the debt... Yes AA could file a counter claim or sue himself, but again there is no reason he can't do that at anytime...
Click to expand...

Seems people are missing that little fact here with all their happy dancing.

That is exactly what could happen, so all of you saying "cut and dried" clearely it isn't. And why wouldn't he have done that at "anytime"...simple...money. The longer the case would be drawn out in the USA, the way more money it would cost than to just have it default to the UK and then deal with it. International fees, filings, costs, two legal teams, etc. would add up to ridiculous amounts.

They took a shot in the dark trying to get it dismissed, it failed, it's not worth pursing it any more in a long drawn out battle in the USA, so have it drop to the UK by default, counter claim or sue showing the case is invalid, etc. and so on.

Ain't done by a long shot if he and/or his UK team doesn't want it to be.
 
Originally posted by exoray@Feb 14 2006, 07:23 PM

And the reverse for AA?

What is actually boils down to is Copyright and Trademark infringment, plain and simple...

AA has ZERO defense at the Trademark infringment, put aside all the Copyright issues and the Trademark issues are still plenty enough to sink him...
[snapback]1184444[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


What it boils down to is who has the goods and who has evidence of a contract signing off rights.

So you're ready to put aside the copyright issues? The helmets are worth far more than a decal...

Simple.

:cheers,

Thomas
 
Originally posted by Darth Bill@Feb 14 2006, 08:00 PM

Once again, immaterial.

The courts?

"Credibility"? "Jurisdiction"..??

Still not getting it, are we?

Lucas ain't gonna bring the fight back to the UK.

And he doesn't have to.

He set the stage. He'll get the judgement and it'll be enforced under that pesky little Hague Convention.  :lol

Like I said before, "If you've got a case, you fight it."

Think of it "schoolyard-rules" style...
Click to expand...

That's what you would like to believe. Read the Hague.

If LFL doesn't take it to the UK, they won't get anything and can do nothing.

What you don't seem to get is international law. You arrogantly assume that the USA is the almighty when it comes to enforcing law and that it can tell any country what to do.

What you would like to believe is immaterial in regard to what the law states insofar as procedure.

You assume LFL has a case. Poor assumption on your part especially since even Exoray has been complaining that AA hasn't provided a defense yet.

:cheers,

Thomas
 
What you don't seem to get is international law. You arrogantly assume that the USA is the almighty when it comes to enforcing law and that it can tell any country what to do.
Click to expand...

That is what the Hague convention is for...

I wonder what AA would do if someone in the US started to make paddles using his signature on them... Hmm...
 
Originally posted by SithLord@Feb 14 2006, 11:51 PM
You assume LFL has a case. Poor assumption on your part especially since even Exoray has been complaining that AA hasn't provided a defense yet.
Click to expand...

Thomas the case is almost over, LFL had a great case and should win on all claims...

As for AA's defense, yep he didn't provide one, but forget the "yet" he doesn't get to provide one any longer, the case is over... When taken to the UK under the Hague Convention it's clear that the courts there CAN NOT RULE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE... Sorry AA will not get to provide a defense of the merits of the case at that point... There isn't this "default" to UK court for a slug out, it's only a collections issue at that point...

He would have to start his own lawsuit and sue LFL for infringment and win, yeah right...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Loki mask: recasting/legality question
Replies
19
Views
1,838
joingaramo17
joingaramo17
S
ARC Raiders Safe Pocket
Replies
9
Views
360
smithjohnj
S
Electronic Lids
Recaster alert - ebay username zabalus99
Replies
6
Views
1,511
Kroenen77
Kroenen77
Jintosh
BSG TOS Colonial Blaster WIP
2
Replies
20
Views
1,581
Jintosh
Jintosh
eethan
Propstore auction - Tomenosuke Retail, not really a Tomenosuke, right?
Replies
10
Views
480
dcast
dcast
Back
Top