LFL v SDS

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Well, I am anti-AA, but my questions still haven't been answered. Looking at those two areas of the Hague, it looks as if AA may have something in regards to not ponying up the dough. Hell of a gamble.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Feb 10 2006, 03:30 PM
Hell of a gamble.

[snapback]1180802[/snapback]​

Which reminds me of that pic someone did (was it Braks Buddy?) of AA as a Hoth Rebel flipping the bird at the oncoming ATAT's :lol

Cheers

jez

 

[Apollo]

There he is. :lol

I too think this is just another step and this is far from over.

If not then AA is really going to look like a fool.

 

[Gytheran]

Had AA really possessed the proof to support his ownership of the copyright, he would have fought LFL.

To date, there has been ABSOLUTELY NO proof whatsoever to support AA owned the copyright to the stormtrooper design. The only thing we've had to go on was his word, which isn't worth the net space it was saved to.

This "David vs Goliath" reference is ridiculous. AA just gave LFL a win and there's nothing to state this will go to UK courts. All LFL needs to do is have UK courts to honor the U.S. decision. He's(AA) a certified wacko if he thought he would win by initiating the "moron maneuver". Copyright infringement is a really hot topic. :confused

Looks like AA was full of crap afterall... not that it's a surprise. He's never been proven to be very truthfull.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275+Feb 10 2006, 10:34 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BingoBongo275 @ Feb 10 2006, 10:34 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Qui-Gonzalez

@Feb 10 2006, 03:30 PM
Hell of a gamble.

[snapback]1180802[/snapback]​

Which reminds me of that pic someone did (was it Braks Buddy?) of AA as a Hoth Rebel flipping the bird at the oncoming ATAT's :lol

Cheers

jez

[snapback]1180809[/snapback]​

[/b]

:lol

Yeah, that pic was great. Someone needs to re post that.

 

[Jeeves]

This is probably a lot more complex than it appears from our armchairs. We're talking about two different legal systems, two different sets of laws. For all we know, AA might be OK under British copyright laws, and not under US copyright laws. If that's the case, he'd be a moron to come to the US to stand trial under out laws. Heck, even if he's got an arguable case under US copyright laws, he probably doesn't have the muscle to mount a significant trial against LFL - it may not be worth the risk. I don't know the truth here, just pointing out alternate explanations - I would think that his actions were recommended to him by his lawyer for a specific strategic reason.

-Raj

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by Jeeves@Feb 10 2006, 12:17 PM
This is probably a lot more complex than it appears from our armchairs. We're talking about two different legal systems, two different sets of laws. For all we know, AA might be OK under British copyright laws, and not under US copyright laws. If that's the case, he'd be a moron to come to the US to stand trial under out laws. Heck, even if he's got an arguable case under US copyright laws, he probably doesn't have the muscle to mount a significant trial against LFL - it may not be worth the risk.  I don't know the truth here, just pointing out alternate explanations - I would think that his actions were recommended to him by his lawyer for a specific strategic reason.

-Raj

[snapback]1180845[/snapback]​

I would agree with your last statement. This guy stands to lose eeeeverything, I doubt this is the end of the road. As far as the ruling goes, according to that Hague treaty Exoray posted, the UK courts should abide by the US court's ruling. The difference seems to come in regards to the damages the courts will award LFL.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Feb 10 2006, 11:23 AM
according to that Hague treaty Exoray posted, the UK courts should abide by the US court's ruling. The difference seems to come in regards to the damages the courts will award LFL.

And that is really what it all boils down to, and the reason for the Hague Convention so matters like this don't go unchecked because of your nationality in regards to the world market...

 

[exoray]

I would think that his actions were recommended to him by his lawyer for a specific strategic reason.

IMO if his council was going to recommend default they would have advised it at the very start, before AA even acknowledged that the US courts had any power over him... The minute he answered the summons and then continued the case he showed the courts (both UK and US) that he felt bound by the US courts in regards to this issue, this might very well come back to haunt him...

And again IMO it appears more of a lack of keeping the legal fund above water scenerio, why give LFL everything when (I would say with almost 100% certainty that) he could have cut a deal and walked away in better standing...

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Originally posted by exoray@Feb 10 2006, 07:10 PM
The minute he answered the summons and then continued the case he showed the courts (both UK and US) that he felt bound by the US courts in regards to this issue, this might very well come back to haunt him...

[snapback]1180967[/snapback]​

Did he answer the summons?. His response to the US courts seemed to have centered on their "lack of jurisdiction" and not the case itself.

why give LFL everything when (I would say with almost 100% certainty that) he could have cut a deal and walked away in better standing...

What did he give LFL? How do you know he didnt try and "cut a deal"?

Cheers

Jez

 

[Gytheran]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Feb 10 2006, 01:36 PM
What did he give LFL?

[snapback]1180993[/snapback]​

An uncontested set of accusations that, now, the court will automatically rule in favor of. I'm not even in the law prefession, but I imagine if AA would have pled his case and allow the courts make a decision based on BOTH sides, the charges against him could have been reduced considerably. By throwing in the towel, as he did, the court only has LFL to go from and now are forced to automatically make a judgement based upon only LFL... or so that's what I gather...

 

[foxbatkllr]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275+Feb 10 2006, 11:36 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BingoBongo275 @ Feb 10 2006, 11:36 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-exoray

@Feb 10 2006, 07:10 PM
The minute he answered the summons and then continued the case he showed the courts (both UK and US) that he felt bound by the US courts in regards to this issue, this might very well come back to haunt him...

[snapback]1180967[/snapback]​

Did he answer the summons?. His response to the US courts seemed to have centered on their "lack of jurisdiction" and not the case itself.

[snapback]1180993[/snapback]​

[/b]

That's what I was about to say. He never submitted to the jurisdiction of the court because he didn't answer the complaint. Rather he made a special appearance with a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. At least that's my understanding...

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Feb 10 2006, 02:36 PM
Did he answer the summons?. His response to the US courts seemed to have centered on their "lack of jurisdiction" and not the case itself.

Sure he did, he hired US council and answered to the first summons, and then filed a motion and then followup paperwork... Just because his motion was to change venue isn't really an issue, a change of venue motion is long shot try, used in almost any case where there is some question of jurisdiction...

Put a spin on it however you want, he submitted to the US courts by answering them in the first place... Not submitting would have been a total ignore of them from the start...

he didn't answer the complaint.

Sure he did...

 

[Art Andrews]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Feb 10 2006, 04:15 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Feb 10 2006, 04:15 PM)</div>

Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Feb 10 2006, 10:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Qui-Gonzalez

@Feb 10 2006, 03:30 PM
Hell of a gamble.

[snapback]1180802[/snapback]​

Which reminds me of that pic someone did (was it Braks Buddy?) of AA as a Hoth Rebel flipping the bird at the oncoming ATAT's :lol

Cheers

jez

[snapback]1180809[/snapback]​

:lol

Yeah, that pic was great. Someone needs to re post that.

[snapback]1180843[/snapback]​

[/b]

This one?

 

[atacpdx]

To sum it all up

(Cue AA's new theme song)

Nananananananananana Hey Hey Hey goodbye.....

:love

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Thats the one Braks

:lol :lol :lol

Cheers

Jez

ps nice one atacpdx - great contribution to the discussion :rolleyes

 

[atacpdx]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Feb 10 2006, 08:19 PM
Thats the one Braks

:lol :lol :lol

Cheers

Jez

ps nice one atacpdx - great contribution to the discussion  :rolleyes

[snapback]1181044[/snapback]​

Yeah it needed some levity didn't it. :$

Let's face it Jez people take this all a little to seriously sometimes...

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Originally posted by foxbatkllr@Feb 10 2006, 07:50 PM
That's what I was about to say.  He never submitted to the jurisdiction of the court because he didn't answer the complaint.  Rather he made a special appearance with a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  At least that's my understanding...

[snapback]1181009[/snapback]​

This was my understanding too.

Not trying to put "a spin" on it Exoray. As wth everyone here (AFAIK) I'm no lawyer (least one with international experience) so I'm just trying to "understand" the moves of the various parties in the case.

If he's being represented by RP&C in the UK I'd be surprised if they had made such a simple mistake, especially given the potential ramifications.

Cheers

Jez

ps atacpdx - point taken

 

[foxbatkllr]

Originally posted by exoray+Feb 10 2006, 11:59 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Feb 10 2006, 11:59 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-BingoBongo275

@Feb 10 2006, 02:36 PM
Did he answer the summons?. His response to the US courts seemed to have centered on their "lack of jurisdiction" and not the case itself.

Sure he did, he hired US council and answered to the first summons, and then filed a motion and then followup paperwork... Just because his motion was to change venue isn't really an issue, a change of venue motion is long shot try, used in almost any case where there is some question of jurisdiction...

Put a spin on it however you want, he submitted to the US courts by answering them in the first place... Not submitting would have been a total ignore of them from the start...

he didn't answer the complaint.

Sure he did...

[snapback]1181022[/snapback]​

[/b]

You are correct. Federal courts have no special appearance rule. Rule 12b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the rules for a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Most states allow you to object to jurisdiction without submitting yourself to the jurisdiction of the court. Sorry, I'm still learning.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by foxbatkllr@Feb 10 2006, 03:32 PM
You are correct.  Federal courts have no special appearance rule.  Rule 12b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the rules for a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  Most states allow you to object to jurisdiction without submitting yourself to the jurisdiction of the court.  Sorry, I'm still learning.

[snapback]1181057[/snapback]​

And under that rule this is what I believe to be most important here...

(B) How Presented.

Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,  (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, (3) improper venue, (4) insufficiency of process, (5) insufficiency of service of process, (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at the trial any defense in law or fact to that claim for relief. If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

In short you can answer with certain types of motions...