AA/SDS recasting issue...

[Darth Kahnt]

When is the court date for this? Is there a website that has updates on the AA/LFL court case?

I don't want to post my opinions here, but I am interested in following the court proceedings.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by DarthKahnt@Jan 14 2006, 02:04 AM
When is the court date for this? Is there a website that has updates on the AA/LFL court case?

[snapback]1158810[/snapback]​

This case will take many, many months to go through the court system there is no "court date" it's an ongoing case...

As for a website with court updates, yes there is one compliments of yours truly I did the footwork and paid to obtain the files (a few documents were obtained by The One We May Not Speak of Here) But, I have refrained from posting a link here because the RPF staff is supposed to be reviewing whether or it's ok to be posted here... It walks a thin line on the CoC, and as of now I have not heard back... This is mostly because the case now involves members of this forum...

 

[Jedirick]

You mean this?


http://rpf.exoray.com/LFL_vs_SDS/

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 13 2006, 09:11 PM
Mikey,

No offense intended but your last response to Darby is nothing but a cop out. What he's asking has nothing to do with AA. Just a question for you to answer in a hypothetical manner.

Based on some of your posts in past threads, I'd say you like dabbling in the hypothetical. Why not answer it?

And please, no cop out answer to me as you did earlier.

[snapback]1158588[/snapback]​

The fact is I answered these questions before, more than once actually, but until I say something you both want to hear you'll just keep asking. You've both made up your minds, totally and completely refuse to accept anything but what you believe, and that's that.

Call this a cop out answer if you want Johnny, but actually it's closed-minded refusal on your parts to accept any opposing responses but instead just keep sticking to your side of things as absolutes.

So...why bang my head against a brick wall? Been there, done that, and again complete waste of time.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by Jedirick@Jan 14 2006, 05:39 AM
You mean this?


http://rpf.exoray.com/LFL_vs_SDS/

[snapback]1158864[/snapback]​

I am no legal eagle, but the time span seems normal for a case like this. When I was in Corrections, you would see trials, criminal trials, take this long. It was a hell of a dance to read and it does not look good for AA.

Even LFL is alledging that he is not using the original molds. The direct legalese quote, for those who won't read the link, "Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, thatin truth defendants' are not made from the original molds used to create the actual Stormtrooper helmets and costumes and the TIE Fighter pilot helmets, defendant Ainsworth was at most merely involved in the fabrication and assembly of parts based on Plaintiff's artwork, models, drawing and sculptures and which were then painted and detailed by Plaintiff to create the actual helmets and costumes, defendant Shepperton Designs was not even incorporated until 2004 and defendants' copies are not exact duplicates of Plaintiff's helmets or costumes."

LFL then goes on to ask for, I believe 5 million for each claim of relief and 150,000 for each "infringement".

Now, I may have missed something here, but so far the only fight that AA has issued was a jurisdictional one. He tried to get the case dismissed because of a "lack of personal jurisdiction" on 8/18/05. LFL fought this on 9/14/05 and the judge shot it down as of 10/04/05.

Unless things are missing from that timeline, AA is really not putting up much of a fight and LFL seems to be waiting on an official C&D from the courts to AA.

That made for a very interesting read and thanks to Exoray for compiling it all.

 

[Apollo]

Yes, I too would like to thank Exoray.

Thanks for taking the time and Money to do this for us.

You are a Gentleman and a scholar.

 

[KevVader]

You mean this?


http://rpf.exoray.com/LFL_vs_SDS/

[snapback]1158864[/snapback]​

[/quote

.....That made for a very interesting read and thanks to Exoray for compiling it all.

[snapback]1158895[/snapback]​

Ditto....it is a very interesting read....I wasn't aware of the extent of the lawsuit until I had read all of the allegations...Thanks again Exoray....

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by Jedirick@Jan 14 2006, 04:39 AM
You mean this?


http://rpf.exoray.com/LFL_vs_SDS/

[snapback]1158864[/snapback]​

Yep that is it, thanks for posting it and maybe the "inside" information claims of some will be put to rest ...

I also check the status of the case 1 or 2 times a week, so as soon as there are new updates I will request the new files and keep that page up to date...

Unless things are missing from that timeline, AA is really not putting up much of a fight and LFL seems to be waiting on an official C&D from the courts to AA.

My webpage is a copy of the official court docket for the case as published by PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) And every file I obtained (or was provided) I linked approprietly, what you see for the most part is the complete up to date court record on the case...

And no AA doesn't seem to be arguing or fighting the facts LFL has alleged, the answer to the complaint generally contains a check list of denials by the defendent, but so far AA has not denied much in his answers... The change of venue/ jurisdiction is a normal "shot in the dark for a quick dismissal" common early on in cases like this... We might even see other shots for a quick dismissal as it continues, like a request for summary judgement...

 

[Lord Abaddon]

I want to thank you as well Exoray (I know I did at the RPB, but wanted to say so here). It really is both interesting as well as educational to see how something like this plays out and I think we all appreciate your taking the time and money to do this for us.

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 14 2006, 06:53 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 14 2006, 06:53 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-gavidoc

@Jan 13 2006, 09:11 PM
Mikey,

No offense intended but your last response to Darby is nothing but a cop out. What he's asking has nothing to do with AA. Just a question for you to answer in a hypothetical manner.

Based on some of your posts in past threads, I'd say you like dabbling in the hypothetical. Why not answer it?

And please, no cop out answer to me as you did earlier.

[snapback]1158588[/snapback]​

The fact is I answered these questions before, more than once actually, but until I say something you both want to hear you'll just keep asking. You've both made up your minds, totally and completely refuse to accept anything but what you believe, and that's that.

Call this a cop out answer if you want Johnny, but actually it's closed-minded refusal on your parts to accept any opposing responses but instead just keep sticking to your side of things as absolutes.

So...why bang my head against a brick wall? Been there, done that, and again complete waste of time.

[snapback]1158893[/snapback]​

[/b]

Mike you never answered that question at all once again. If you hire someone to make a prototype for you how would you feel if he made 1000 more and went into competition with you using your own ideas. I want to know how you would feel about it.

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Darbycrash+Jan 14 2006, 05:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darbycrash @ Jan 14 2006, 05:01 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 14 2006, 06:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-gavidoc

@Jan 13 2006, 09:11 PM
Mikey,

No offense intended but your last response to Darby is nothing but a cop out. What he's asking has nothing to do with AA. Just a question for you to answer in a hypothetical manner.

Based on some of your posts in past threads, I'd say you like dabbling in the hypothetical. Why not answer it?

And please, no cop out answer to me as you did earlier.

[snapback]1158588[/snapback]​

The fact is I answered these questions before, more than once actually, but until I say something you both want to hear you'll just keep asking. You've both made up your minds, totally and completely refuse to accept anything but what you believe, and that's that.

Call this a cop out answer if you want Johnny, but actually it's closed-minded refusal on your parts to accept any opposing responses but instead just keep sticking to your side of things as absolutes.

So...why bang my head against a brick wall? Been there, done that, and again complete waste of time.

[snapback]1158893[/snapback]​

Mike you never answered that question at all once again. If you hire someone to make a prototype for you how would you feel if he made 1000 more and went into competition with you using your own ideas. I want to know how you would feel about it.

[snapback]1159127[/snapback]​

[/b]

Yeah Darby, he never answered mine either. I was curious as to what he was talking about in regards to a PK/D issue and instead of answering, he told me to ask Prop Ed.

Don't know why he thinks he is banging his head against a brick wall when there isn't a wall to bang it agains. :unsure Reminds me of Harry Truman during the strikes of 1946. When constantly asked about the strikers and what he would do about it, his only comment (again, a cop out) was "No Comment." Why? He didn't have an answer for the reporters as he didn't know.

 

[elwood49]

Thank you very much for your footwork on this. It is a very interesting read. I'm not familiar with Peter J. Anderson at all (Lucas's lawyer), but he must be a big-shot entertainment/patent attorney.

The reason I say that is I'm suprised that Lucas didn't employ a full team of suits to take on AA. He's using a sole practicioner, while AA retained Nixon Peabody, a firm of over 600 attorneys.

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 14 2006, 03:35 PM

The change of venue/ jurisdiction is a normal "shot in the dark for a quick dismissal" common early on in cases like this...

Right, but I don't think it was much of a shot in the dark for this case. The Court documents that AA has only sold 19 helmets to Californians. That's not necessarily systematic and continuous for purposes of establishing jurisdiction. The judge apparently thought it was though.

This will be interesting to follow. I especially enjoyed how Lucas alleges that AA isn't using the original molds. :lol I always wanted one of his helmets, but now that I'm more educated about him, I'm glad I never bought one.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by elwood49@Jan 14 2006, 11:33 PM
The Court documents that AA has only sold 19 helmets to Californians. That's not necessarily systematic and continuous for purposes of establishing jurisdiction. The judge apparently thought it was though.

[snapback]1159473[/snapback]​

This is Federal Court and most of the violations are Federal as well, so this courts jurisdiction covers every helmet AA has sold to any US state, not only California... AA's argument conviently failed to touch on these Federal issues, every US sale is the jurisdiction of this court... This California only issue might play on damages from the State level issues but not at the Federal level... Also because state charges were brought forward they can only be tried in that state... And last but not least, if AA had not sold a single helmet to California he might have had grounds to have it moved to another state that he did sell within, but not out of the Country...

 

[Darth Kahnt]

I'd like to thank exoray as well. Very interesting read.

Thanks for taking the time and money to compile this for us.

 

[Darbycrash]

Another fact I want to bring up is Andrew was in fact paid for his work. Here is a direct quote "The first 50 helmets I sold to him for 35 pounds each."

So to address the point that Mike made earlier that we have no clue how Andrew was paid. That was taken from an interview with Andrew.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 15 2006, 01:55 AM
"The first 50 helmets I sold to him for 35 pounds each."

[snapback]1159560[/snapback]​

Not to shabby of a price tag, even though he jokes about it in that interview... I did a little research and the conversion rate for dollars to pounds in 1976 was 1.7969, adjust for inflation with on online inflation calculator and that comes to the equivelent of $215.91 (2005 adjustment) for each helmet times 50 is about $10,795.50 (2005 adjustment) not a bad payday...

And just a hunch but I doubt LFL would have just tossed that kind of money around without some supporting paperwork...

 

[yakcam]

Originally posted by exoray+Jan 15 2006, 06:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Jan 15 2006, 06:14 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Jan 15 2006, 01:55 AM
"The first 50 helmets I sold to him for 35 pounds each."

[snapback]1159560[/snapback]​

Not to shabby of a price tag, even though he jokes about it in that interview... I did a little research and the conversion rate for dollars to pounds in 1976 was 1.7969, adjust for inflation with on online inflation calculator and that comes to the equivelent of $215.91 (2005 adjustment) for each helmet times 50 is about $10,795.50 (2005 adjustment) not a bad payday...

And just a hunch but I doubt LFL would have just tossed that kind of money around without some supporting paperwork...

[snapback]1159575[/snapback]​

[/b]

I'm no expert in movie prop building, but, if that $215.91 is adjusted to todays dollars, that's pretty damned cheap, to me, someone who doesn't know much about providing props for a movie.

I know that if I were to take on a job for a big company, I would give them a very good price to attract more business and that's exactly what I do.
I know that LFL wasn't big at the time, but word of mouth spreads like butter on a hot day, it would be (hopefully) to my advantage to provide a price that covered my costs but also helped me display my product.
If I lose, well I still made money and can write off the lost revenue as an "expense".


Just a thought from an outside observer.

Cheers,

Kraig

 

[Ghost Host]

Very true. That's just business. Speaking from experience, we used to charge the Buffy the Vampire production $500 per vamp appliance. And it was a pretty small shop.

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by exoray+Jan 15 2006, 01:14 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Jan 15 2006, 01:14 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Jan 15 2006, 01:55 AM
"The first 50 helmets I sold to him for 35 pounds each."

[snapback]1159560[/snapback]​

Not to shabby of a price tag, even though he jokes about it in that interview... I did a little research and the conversion rate for dollars to pounds in 1976 was 1.7969, adjust for inflation with on online inflation calculator and that comes to the equivelent of $215.91 (2005 adjustment) for each helmet times 50 is about $10,795.50 (2005 adjustment) not a bad payday...

And just a hunch but I doubt LFL would have just tossed that kind of money around without some supporting paperwork...

[snapback]1159575[/snapback]​

[/b]

Thats not bad at all which once again brings me back to my earlier point. If you were paid to make an item for a client. How professional is it to take his idea and go into competition with him. How many people would even trust AA/SDS with their work if thats how he feels about his clients.

 

[gavidoc]

Man, that is dirt cheap considering all he did to make the helmets.

The molds, the first pulls which had that funky looking ribbing in the back (or were those later?), plus the actual helmet pulls. Not to mention the time involved in the making of the molds, the time involved in the actual vac forming, the time involved in the pulling of "bad parts", nor the cost of supplies.

Of course, he might have charged LFL for the molds separately from the actual helmets.

Heck, maybe that is where the confusion has come in. Maybe he didn't charge LFL for the molds and being different countries, LFL assumed the price charged for the helmets included the price of the molds like here in the States.

You never know. Oooohhhhh, there's that whole conjecture thing again.