LFL v SDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Ghost Host@Feb 9 2006, 10:44 PM
Strange development. 
How can LFL stop SDS from selling to the US?  I mean that literally?
And how will they claim their award without going over to the UK?

Well for starters they will probably notify customs, and customs will start to seize packages... Second they will probably send nasty grams to payment companies like Paypal threatening them for contribuiting to the infringments...

And then they will petition the UK courts under the Hague Convention for enforcement, read above the UK courts should uphold the US judgment and act accordinly... It's the age old you wash my hands I will wash yours, universally the UK and US courts will work together in issues like this because they want the other to return the favor when asked, thus the purpose of Conventions like the Hague in absence of an International court...

I full well understand it's an international issue but the international boundries don't give you full protection when you are in a "friendly" country...
 
So if anyone in the U.S really wanted to buy anything from SDS, whats to stop them bringing them in via a secondary country through relatives/friends?
 
laugh.gif
How predictable.

How much more obvious does it have to be that AA has been full of crap all along?

This clinches it for me. LFL is in the right and has the facts to prove it. They were going to nail him. He knew this and that he would lose if it went to court, so a Default allows his to save as much face as possible.
 
Another non-lawyer here, but I would assume as his counsel recommend he default, that his counsel would also recommend he no longer accept orders from outside the UK.

If he does continue to accept orders then he would be exposing himself to being sued again, for an even higher amount.

Of course it might be a moot point, By defaulting, he might then declare bankruptcy, stop production and that will be the end of SDS.
 
not jumping to any conclusions here, but maybe SDS figured hes gonna lose his right to sell the props, why lose his dignity too by allowing a court case to reveal all sorts of interesting stuff. Now when he loses the case, that's why, and not because his whole operation was a fraud
 
You're kidding right.?
I think it's got more to do with the fact he never had the original moulds and he was conning people from the get go.
He's given up because he knows LFL have rock solid evidence to prove he hasn't got the original moulds.


Originally posted by Trallis@Feb 10 2006, 07:41 AM
not jumping to any conclusions here, but maybe SDS figured hes gonna lose his right to sell the props, why lose his dignity too by allowing a court case to reveal all sorts of interesting stuff.  Now when he loses the case, that's why, and not because his whole operation was a fraud
[snapback]1180580[/snapback]​
 
Originally posted by Trallis@Feb 10 2006, 07:41 AM
not jumping to any conclusions here, but maybe SDS figured hes gonna lose his right to sell the props, why lose his dignity too by allowing a court case to reveal all sorts of interesting stuff.  Now when he loses the case, that's why, and not because his whole operation was a fraud
[snapback]1180580[/snapback]​

Also if he had the original moulds and he could prove this why would he allow LFL to win by default purely because of his "dignity"
This is a multi-million dollar law suit - do you think he would walk away just to save face knowing he's going to lose everything and owe a fortune - I don't think so...
 
Originally posted by foxbatkllr+Feb 10 2006, 01:23 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(foxbatkllr @ Feb 10 2006, 01:23 AM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-DL 44 Blaster
@Feb 9 2006, 05:01 PM
So will SDS continue to openly sell?? :confused
[snapback]1180329[/snapback]​

Not for long. SDS is demonstrating the easy way to lose a lawsuit.
[snapback]1180339[/snapback]​
[/b]
The most cost effective way :lol
 
Originally posted by AnsonJames+Feb 10 2006, 03:34 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnsonJames @ Feb 10 2006, 03:34 AM)</div>
You're kidding right.?
I think it's got more to do with the fact he never had the original moulds and he was conning people from the get go.
He's given up because he knows LFL have rock solid evidence to prove he hasn't got the original moulds.


<!--QuoteBegin-Trallis
@Feb 10 2006, 07:41 AM
not jumping to any conclusions here, but maybe SDS figured hes gonna lose his right to sell the props, why lose his dignity too by allowing a court case to reveal all sorts of interesting stuff.  Now when he loses the case, that's why, and not because his whole operation was a fraud
[snapback]1180580[/snapback]​
[snapback]1180613[/snapback]​
[/b]

Thats exactly what i said. He knows hes gonna get rocked and he has no chance, so why bother if it just means embarassment in the court room and the further revelation of his whole operation, when he could just as easily lose without all the extra trouble and embaressment. The last sentence was a sarcastic statement, i'm talking about my theory of his own reasoning
 
Originally posted by AnsonJames+Feb 10 2006, 03:53 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnsonJames @ Feb 10 2006, 03:53 AM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Trallis
@Feb 10 2006, 07:41 AM
not jumping to any conclusions here, but maybe SDS figured hes gonna lose his right to sell the props, why lose his dignity too by allowing a court case to reveal all sorts of interesting stuff.  Now when he loses the case, that's why, and not because his whole operation was a fraud
[snapback]1180580[/snapback]​

Also if he had the original moulds and he could prove this why would he allow LFL to win by default purely because of his "dignity"
This is a multi-million dollar law suit - do you think he would walk away just to save face knowing he's going to lose everything and owe a fortune - I don't think so...
[snapback]1180617[/snapback]​
[/b]

and believe me man, im on the furthest left side of the original molds topic. i am one of the "he isnt even the sculpter" guys
 
Sorry mate - I completely took you up wrong.
I really don't think AA had any dignity to begin with.
I'm just waiting for the Pro-AA camp to come up with some way of explaining his actions in this matter - hopefully this should kill this debate once and for all.

Anson



Originally posted by Trallis+Feb 10 2006, 10:07 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Trallis @ Feb 10 2006, 10:07 AM)</div>
Originally posted by AnsonJames@Feb 10 2006, 03:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Trallis
@Feb 10 2006, 07:41 AM
not jumping to any conclusions here, but maybe SDS figured hes gonna lose his right to sell the props, why lose his dignity too by allowing a court case to reveal all sorts of interesting stuff.  Now when he loses the case, that's why, and not because his whole operation was a fraud
[snapback]1180580[/snapback]​


Also if he had the original moulds and he could prove this why would he allow LFL to win by default purely because of his "dignity"
This is a multi-million dollar law suit - do you think he would walk away just to save face knowing he's going to lose everything and owe a fortune - I don't think so...
[snapback]1180617[/snapback]​

and believe me man, im on the furthest left side of the original molds topic. i am one of the "he isnt even the sculpter" guys
[snapback]1180626[/snapback]​
[/b]
 
Originally posted by exoray+Feb 9 2006, 09:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Feb 9 2006, 09:45 PM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Qui-Gonzalez
@Feb 9 2006, 08:28 PM
So, my next question for the legal eagles; If LFL gets the default judgement, does that mean they "win" their claims from AA

Yes...

OR does this head to an international

No such thing as International court...

or UK court room to have an old fashioned duke-'em-up in that arena?

Yes it will head to the UK court system as a collection for judgment, there will no duke-'em out in that case, the UK court under the Hague Convention will not rule on the merits of the case that lead tot he judgment, but only if it is a legitimate judgment...

Of course because it's International there will be a few obstacles, the fact AA defaulted might have some relevance under the Hague Convention but I doubt it since he did start to defend himself at first, it wasn't an all out default from the start...

Read Chapter III of this part of the Hague Convention for a detailed explanation...

http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=98
[snapback]1180365[/snapback]​
[/b]
So, reading Chapter 3 of the Hague, I caught a couple of things. The first was in Article 8/Section 2:
Without prejudice to such review as is necessary for the application of the provisions of this Chapter, there shall be no review of the merits of the judgment given by the court of origin. The court addressed shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of origin based its jurisdiction, unless the judgment was given by default.

That part looks like AA's next gambit to me. Then there is Article 11 which tells me, in both parts, that he may not lose all that LFL wanted him to, if the UK courts indeed feel LFL is in the right:

1. Recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered.

2. The court addressed shall take into account whether and to what extent the damages awarded by the court of origin serve to cover costs and expenses relating to the proceedings.


I could be way off, being a layman and all, but of the whole of Chapter 3, those caught my eye.
 
Originally posted by exoray@Feb 10 2006, 12:14 AM
So AA isn't giving up, their just saying "What ever"????

No AA has decided to ignore the court, basically the case wraps up (judgment) based on LFL claims as being factual and now uncontested...

Lets put it this way, if he was a boxer he just refused to get off the stool and answer the bell...
[snapback]1180287[/snapback]​

I think the correct analogy would be..

The “Boxer” didn’t even get on the plane to go to the bout in the first place. The other boxer turned up in the ring, but there was no one there to fight. :lol

In all honesty did anyone here expect anything other than this? Did people REALLY think that David was going to visit Goliath? :rolleyes

It all comes down to whether LFL are able to get the UK Courts to enforce the costs of a US Judgements, and with respect I donÂ’t think anyone here has an understanding of whether thatÂ’s achievable or not. IÂ’m presuming we donÂ’t have any experts on international law here?

Cheers

Jez
 
Wow. This thread has been here since last night and Thomas and Mike have not replied? ;)
 
So now...do the value of what's "left" of SDS products go up or down? Predicting along the ICONS debacle,I'd say they will go down.

2 cents

Steve
 
Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Feb 9 2006, 09:37 PM
I thought it added up to 20. At that point, it doesn't even matter, jeez. 1 million or 20 million...anything after one is just crazy.
[snapback]1180355[/snapback]​

If I'm not mistaken, only counts if u have assets to attach to. He could be worth relatively little to LFL @ the end of the day.... if anything.

IMO it's simply to stop the sale & production - they could have sued for 50M or whatever.

I know nothing of SDS but Joe Blow w/ an old vacformer, some rental space = low to zero asset value. SDS owns a large building different story.

-Rod
 
Well some of us bought the suits to troop in, so selling them may be a moot point.

IMHO, LFL is going to have to file in the UK to get him to stop selling them.
 
Originally posted by apollo@Feb 10 2006, 02:11 PM
Wow.  This thread has been here since last night and Thomas and Mike have not replied? ;)
[snapback]1180700[/snapback]​


Does seem very one sided this particular topic doesn't it?

As far as the David and Goliath argument is concerned if I were AA I wouldn't back down for all the tea in China even if LFL is a huge corperation - if you're right you're right.
I find it curious that AA went to the trouble of hiring a lawyer just to back out at the last minute - why did he bother?
If you were sure of your case and you could produce the original moulds in court why would you fall back on loopholes in the law?
As it is international copyright law is a very touchy subject right at the moment - I'd be amazed if the British courts ignored a ruling made in the U.S.
 
Originally posted by apollo@Feb 10 2006, 08:11 AM
Wow.  This thread has been here since last night and Thomas and Mike have not replied? ;)
[snapback]1180700[/snapback]​

:lol

Well there was no reason too because people were pretty much just talking unemotionally and honestly about possibilities, but then the "speculators" jumped in with their all knowing knowledge of what AA's legal team is doing and why. :lol

First let me again thank Flynn for getting and providing the information, as well as giving us some idea how this might be enforced.

Second as Jez said, did anyone really believe he was going to go all out in the USA? His argument from the start was that the US court had no jurisdiction and LFL had no direct claim. I never saw him fighting this in the US courts for long (though I did think it would go further than this) and I would *assume* that is how his legal team saw it as well. Fighting something in another nation is prohibitively expensive, I don't care who you are (which might be part of why LFL didn't want to "draw blood" in the UK...they still do look at their bottom line). Hell, just the paperwork fees alone could kill ya. More than likely his legal team (not AA...I doubt he knows any more about law than most of the posters here.) told him after the pieces fell into place on the US side to let it go and force it to end up in the UK.

Now, again all assumption, if this does default and does end up being shifted to the UK courts to see about upholding the default, from what I'm reading he still can fully argue his case against such judgement in the UK when it hits there. They would be on their "home turf", they could petition for their side of the argument, show that under UK law he is within his rights (in some fashion...that creative rights law?), etc.

I know the anti-AA people are doing their little happy dances, but that just shows how silly they are. If anyone thinks such legal actions, especially across national borders, are this cut and dried, their delusional. :p

Now, whether he's got a case in any way to stop Goliath from stomping the bejeezus out of him after this is anyone's guess, but I see this as way smarter financially than trying to fight what essentially was a long-distance war.

However I will say that should this not go further, or that somehow the default is argued quietly and resolved as such, I too would be disappointed to not know the truth about it all.

As for prices? Who knows. They could go up as they are rare, still could hold the "from the original maker" (since now we might never know so it's still all opinion) and shoot way up. Or they might fall down to rock bottom. I think they will shoot way up just because of the controversy behind them and they still were made (original or not) by a guy from the movie. It'll probably end up like ICONs actually...remember what ICONs sabers were getting after their shut down? Exhorbitant prices. But then MR came out and they dropped and kept dropping. The only big difference is the provenance as well that nobody is mass producing (theoretically ;)) as seen on screen helmets where as the MR will be idealized. So...as usual time will tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top