AA/SDS recasting issue...
- Thread starter Gytheran
- Start date
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
After a day away I thought IÂ’d check this thread to see if thereÂ’d been any informed update. Unfortunately I was disappointed.
What I said yesterday still stands;
To assume that SDS’s lawyers are some kind of hick company who don’t understand the implications of their actions is just plain dumb. If this was so “clear cut” they would started damage limitation and thus negotiations. This hasn’t happened.
I find the “this is all cut and dried” arrogance of some of the “experts” here quite amusing. I wasn’t aware that you only had to read a few legal papers and all of a sudden you’re an international lawyer . If only life were that simple. :lol :lol :lol
This still has a long way to run, any of the lay-people here who believe they can predict the outcome of this case given the international legal intricacies of this case would be better spending their time forecasting football results.
Cheers
Jez
What I said yesterday still stands;
To assume that SDS’s lawyers are some kind of hick company who don’t understand the implications of their actions is just plain dumb. If this was so “clear cut” they would started damage limitation and thus negotiations. This hasn’t happened.
I find the “this is all cut and dried” arrogance of some of the “experts” here quite amusing. I wasn’t aware that you only had to read a few legal papers and all of a sudden you’re an international lawyer . If only life were that simple. :lol :lol :lol
This still has a long way to run, any of the lay-people here who believe they can predict the outcome of this case given the international legal intricacies of this case would be better spending their time forecasting football results.
Cheers
Jez
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Uh...what? Wow, I will be the first to admit that the case isn't exactly over yet, but damn, give up the ghost. AA defaulted, threw in the towel, which to my laymen's eyes means he has admitted defeat and is holding out hope that the UK courts, following the Hague, will not rake him over the coals like LFL is asking.
Yours posts are as bad as the other clear cut posts that are Anti-AA. It isn't over until we see something that says a final judgement has been rendered and that will be the end of it. As it stands right now, it does NOT look good.
You guys are silly....
I am neither pro nor anti AA but I do own a lawfirm. That said, I think that it looks awfully gloomy for AA. You don't give up your ability to sell into the largest country in the world if you have a solid case by defaulting. This manuever is a classic one designed to screen a losing party from the full effect of judgement. It happens state to state and country to country all the time. He knew he was losing, took a shot at a quick win with the jurisdiction arguement and whiffed. Now he is following the only course open to him to minimize damage. It is that simple. It will play out like this, I'd almost guarrantee it...
LFL will win in the U.S. by default and judge will bar AA from selling in the U.S. and award huge damages.
LFL will file in the U.K. and AA will again fail to answer after a few stunt motions that will fail. The U.K. courts will give LFL default, reduce penalties and AA will lose. AA will then cut and run because even reduced, penalties will crush him and he'll fold the tent without paying. LFL will walk away satisfied at defending their property and AA will spend whatever he has left, if anything, trying to rebuild his life.
AA was banking on LFL talking to him earlier and cutting a deal but it didn't happen. That is why he played at all instead of folding right out of the gate and vanishing. LFL couldn't cut a deal in light of MR and their plans. AA miscalculated.
I am neither pro nor anti AA but I do own a lawfirm. That said, I think that it looks awfully gloomy for AA. You don't give up your ability to sell into the largest country in the world if you have a solid case by defaulting. This manuever is a classic one designed to screen a losing party from the full effect of judgement. It happens state to state and country to country all the time. He knew he was losing, took a shot at a quick win with the jurisdiction arguement and whiffed. Now he is following the only course open to him to minimize damage. It is that simple. It will play out like this, I'd almost guarrantee it...
LFL will win in the U.S. by default and judge will bar AA from selling in the U.S. and award huge damages.
LFL will file in the U.K. and AA will again fail to answer after a few stunt motions that will fail. The U.K. courts will give LFL default, reduce penalties and AA will lose. AA will then cut and run because even reduced, penalties will crush him and he'll fold the tent without paying. LFL will walk away satisfied at defending their property and AA will spend whatever he has left, if anything, trying to rebuild his life.
AA was banking on LFL talking to him earlier and cutting a deal but it didn't happen. That is why he played at all instead of folding right out of the gate and vanishing. LFL couldn't cut a deal in light of MR and their plans. AA miscalculated.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Curse you and your realistic viewpoint.
I don't disagree with your assessment that AA is trying to minimize damages, but what makes you think AA will fail to answer in the UK? And to assume he played at all hoping for an early deal is just an assumption on your part. AA new his rights from the outset otherwise he wouldn't have advertised online. There was no miscalculation on the part of AA or his lawyers except insofar that the California judge completely misinterpreted the conditions that would be required to place the case under California jurisdiction. You own a lawfirm and you state that AA will fail without even seeing AA's evidence? You're in law and here you are passing judgement on someone without seeing their evidence? AA's lawyers know exactly that the case would have to go to the UK and do you think it will pass by the UK legal system unnoticed? I don't see AA in any hurry to shut down his website. Perhaps you and others here would like to assume he's just foolhardy, or stupid?
And to say that it is LFL defending their property is inaccurate since that's not been established yet in court in lieu of evidence provided by AA's counsel.
I don't know if AA will get out of this unscathed, but it's far from over and it could take a very long time yet...
:cheers,
Thomas
exoray
Master Member
And at this point to assume that it was the lawyers choice to default...
There are many more scenerios that could have happened that were beyond the control and advise of legal council, like
1. Lack of payment to the council, thus they won't continue
2. AA refusing to answer the complaint and work with council, leaving the councils hands tied
3. Council quiting because of inconsistencies in AA "facts"
4. The fact that AA has the final call, if he told council to not answer they won't
5. AA only instructed and paid for US council to try the jurisdiction motion
6. AA fired the US council
There are also several other possibilities, that will leave the councils hands tied all not the fault of council or by thier lead...
Yep, that is exactly what happens in a default, he has lost his chance to present his side of the case...
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
You could be right, but given the seriousness of a negative outcome I personally do not think that someone would go into this process without some kind of plan or exit strategy. Sacking your legal council and burying your head in the sand is unlikely to yield results and imo unlikely to be AA's strategy
All I'm saying is that people should be wary of posting "certainties" when there's still some way to go. atacpdx may be right, but no one here knows. There's no certainly LFL will be able to recover any US decreed damages. Nor do people know whether LFL will claim in the UK, or whether AA will defend himself if they do.
Whatever happens from this point forward may well indicate the right and wrongs, but AA's lack of response in the US case does not signify guilt, lies or wrongdoing and its incorrect of anyone to suggest it does.
Cheers
Jez
exoray
Master Member
I disagree, putting aside the fact that this is civil court and there is no guilt or innocence, just liability for your wrongdoings, the US courts will find AA liable for most if not all of LFL claims... Accepting LFL claims as fact, thus finding AA liable for his wrongdoings (the LFL claims) as he never defended the claims...
This isn't a criminal case AA lack of response in a civil case is weighted against him almost as much as an flat out admission of wrongdoing...
Look you guys...
People do things like infringement all the time with no legal right on the theory they'll make as much as they can before they are told to quit. It is entirely coneivable that AA knew from the start he was doing something wrong but assumed that when called on it he could cut a deal because he was selling lots and LFL would want a piece.
Again, you don't walk away from your largest market by defaulting if you have the case AA Claims to have. By defaulting, he insures that he will be banned from selling in the U.S. at all. If you have the legal case he claims to have, you'd be Looney to walk away and lose by a default
We see this type of scenario all the time in corporate law, companies really do knowingly violate patents etc. and then bury their heads when the @#$%. hits.
I think AA gambled and lost and is now taking the only course available--minimizing damages. As for his attorneys, they'll do what they are told, show AA the paths to choose from and then give advice based on the path AA chooses and take their paychecks.
As for offering these opinions without seeing the facts, I'm basing this on the experience of literally hundreds of cases my firm has handled. When you have a winner, you fight. When you don't, you file motions and eventually default. It is a pattern that never changes...
Sorry AA supporters but I gotta say...
Voting on a rosy outcome for AA is a sucker's bet...
People do things like infringement all the time with no legal right on the theory they'll make as much as they can before they are told to quit. It is entirely coneivable that AA knew from the start he was doing something wrong but assumed that when called on it he could cut a deal because he was selling lots and LFL would want a piece.
Again, you don't walk away from your largest market by defaulting if you have the case AA Claims to have. By defaulting, he insures that he will be banned from selling in the U.S. at all. If you have the legal case he claims to have, you'd be Looney to walk away and lose by a default
We see this type of scenario all the time in corporate law, companies really do knowingly violate patents etc. and then bury their heads when the @#$%. hits.
I think AA gambled and lost and is now taking the only course available--minimizing damages. As for his attorneys, they'll do what they are told, show AA the paths to choose from and then give advice based on the path AA chooses and take their paychecks.
As for offering these opinions without seeing the facts, I'm basing this on the experience of literally hundreds of cases my firm has handled. When you have a winner, you fight. When you don't, you file motions and eventually default. It is a pattern that never changes...
Sorry AA supporters but I gotta say...
Voting on a rosy outcome for AA is a sucker's bet...
Jez,
I don't think you understand a basic thing about civil proceedings...
Defaulting in a civil action like this is viewed by the courts the same as a criminal defendant standing up and saying "Your honor I plead guilty, I did it".
The judgement will declare AA "guilty" of the things LFL alleges and won't say "But AA didn't show his magic evidence so maybe he isn't guilty"
You claim that you doubt that anyone would knowingly do something like this and then bury their head in the sand but you have to look no further than the Rimm/blackberry case to see a very similar situation and the legal stunts that are happening there.
Who knows why AA originally began this saga. Maybe it was the lure of a buck. Maybe he didn't get good counsel on the legalities before he started. Maybe he sought no legal counsel at all until he was in trouble. Regardless, if AA had proof of ownership of the designs/moulds, that would be worth Hundreds of Millions. He would never allow himself to be barred from the U.S. markets via a default judgement and his counsel would never advise a default either. He would be in LFL's board room discussing licensing and his cut from MR, Hasbro Sideshow, GG etc..
When one side in a civil litigation begins defaulting, it is to save the cost of trial because you know you'll lose. I agree this will drag on but I've seen to many cases like this. There will be more motions and defaults when this moves to the UK, providing LFL moves forward rather than just being content with booting him from the US.
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
atacpdx, your posts have probably made more sense than anything else I have read here.
However, two things spring to mind....
1) The prohibative cost of fighting legal action in a foreign land. You'd have to have very DEEP pockets to do that, and clearly AA doesnt.
2) Maybe he can console himself to selling direct to the rest of the world as a big enough market?
Bottom line is no one's surprised AA backed off from squaring up to LFL in California, but as to whether thats beciase he didnt have a leg to stand on OR didnt have the funds to adequately defend himself are two different things
Cheers
Jez
However, two things spring to mind....
1) The prohibative cost of fighting legal action in a foreign land. You'd have to have very DEEP pockets to do that, and clearly AA doesnt.
2) Maybe he can console himself to selling direct to the rest of the world as a big enough market?
Bottom line is no one's surprised AA backed off from squaring up to LFL in California, but as to whether thats beciase he didnt have a leg to stand on OR didnt have the funds to adequately defend himself are two different things
Cheers
Jez
ImprisonedFett
New Member
Very true, but either way, a default is a default. It doesn't matter. We could "What if" all day long. It won't answer "our" questions here but that isn't whats on trial.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Big lawfirm=big hourly rate.
exoray
Master Member
Except for a little upcharge for phone conversations (most are probably email anyway, today) there is no more cost involved in fighting it from a foreign land or here... Unless he was doing a pro se defense.... But,yes I will admit it's costly, and the reason that only a few of these types of cases go all the way... But, as LFL pointed out AA has made well into the six figures selling these items, he isn't a poor man... And if AA had all this evidence and a rock solid case to back him up that he was legit and had the rights, he would have probably been able to shop around for a pro bono law firm to tackle the case, without any out of pocket, as the rewards will be many hundreds of millions...
Maybe that is his last ditch, but that assumes LFL doesn't finish that avenue off as well... Interesting in that LFL doesn't need to go to the UK now to get a very easy enforceable UK judgement/injunction, as the UK is now a member of the EU... LFL could persue legal action in any EU country AA has sold to (and violated IP rights in) and there are plenty of new (very solid) comity based laws governing the EU now... I will admit chances are VERY slim they would take this route, as it's a silly move to do, but it is an option open to them...
Since the UK is probably the most likely to return reciprocal enforcement I would guess that is the obvious route to take for them if they choose...
Similar threads
