LFL v SDS

[Darbycrash]

Jez I seem to also remember you saying that because AA was using the so called original moulds it was his right to make the helmets. Well the courts ruled that he doesn't. The point that he didn't defend himself means that he truly had no defense period. All I have to say is anyone that has out standing orders at this point you may want to make sure you have a tracking number.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by jeezycreezy@Mar 7 2006, 03:33 PM
If Lucas says for SDS to pay X amount in damages, and SDS agrees to pay it...is Andrew Ainsworth still going to sell recast armour and helmets from prototype moulds?

What I mean is, is there anything in there for SDS to cease making anything related to Star Wars?  Or will that come later?  Or what?

Well there will most likely be an injunction issued against AA/SDS as well as damages... Keep selling and the amount continues to grow... The injunction and damages will then probably be motioned for enforcement within the UK courts...

-Edit- Oh, and if I recall, the amount was $20mil US.

A quick glance shows $20 million in damages and $15 million punitive/exemplary (the $15 million will likely be lowered by the UK courts) so the total is $35 million + interest and court cost (50/50 chance on getting these) as it stands asked for in the second complaint...

But since his violations are ongoing and continue I would guess LFL will up the pot, probably taking an educated guess on the amount of items AA has sold to date total up damages and then ask for a maximum... Or they could just leave it as is... With no defense, as long as the numbers are even close to being inline with "suspected/known sales" then the Judge will probably award them in full...

One thing has me curious through this whole debacle. Who that has posted on one side of the issue or the other is actually a lawyer?

Not I...

The only two I know of are "the one we can not speak of" here, that has posted on other boards in regards to this case, and I believe atacpdx is a lawyer as well?

 

[elwood49]

Originally posted by exoray@Mar 7 2006, 03:30 AM
Small update as of last week (March 2, 2006) the Judge granted the LFL request for default judgment, case over...

So now LFL gets to toss a figure at the Judge and see if he will award that amount...

Docket Report

[snapback]1200460[/snapback]​

It really doesn't matter what figure they come back with. Good luck collecting the money from a guy in the UK.

Anyway, I would imagine this is a tactical move by AA. By not making an appearance, the judgment is subject to collateral attack for lack of personal jurisdiction. I'm not familiar with California's long arm statute, but that's my guess as the next move...

 

[SithLord]

I agree. It's naive to think AA's lawyers did not foresee a jurisdictional battle followed by default. If I've read the law correctly, it takes both UK and US courts mediated by the Hague to decide whether LFL will receive settlement. AA's defense was pretty clear and it was a defense as well of the question of jurisdiction. Since the complaint was not addressed directly because of the question of jurisdiction, AA simply lost the question of jurisdiction, that's all. To say now he doesn't have the original molds, blah blah blah is rediculous since the case never came to that on account of the jurisdiction question. :rolleyes
And for the record I'm not defending AA, I'm pointing out how easily people here take a simple jurisdiction case as evidence against someone. Default is not evidence for or against. :confused Perhaps in the eyes of a court it is, but is law always predicated on common sense? I'd still like to see LFL present it's own molds or it's own sculpts of the helmets. And I also would like to see AA's evidence that he has the original molds. Because of the jurisdictional battle, we won't see either .

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Mar 7 2006, 07:33 PM
Jez I seem to also remember you saying that because AA was using the so called original moulds it was his right to make the helmets. Well the courts ruled that he doesn't. The point that he didn't defend himself means that he truly had no defense period. All I have to say is anyone that has out standing orders at this point you may want to make sure you have a tracking number.

[snapback]1200963[/snapback]​

It was a question of jurisdiction that was being defended which he did and lost. That doesn't rule out his defense of the matter of him having the original molds. You guys sure like to milk this one. His website is still up. He's still producing helmets and armor. People are still getting helmets and armor. I don't see any big victory here. Ya let's keep an eye on our tracking numbers because AA certainly cannot be trusted because of a loss regarding jurisdiction. That certainly must mean he doesn't have the original molds nor created the original helmets in spite of evidence to the contrary. :rolleyes

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by SithLord+Mar 7 2006, 08:44 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Mar 7 2006, 08:44 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Mar 7 2006, 07:33 PM
Jez I seem to also remember you saying that because AA was using the so called original moulds it was his right to make the helmets. Well the courts ruled that he doesn't. The point that he didn't defend himself means that he truly had no defense period. All I have to say is anyone that has out standing orders at this point you may want to make sure you have a tracking number.

[snapback]1200963[/snapback]​

It was a question of jurisdiction that was being defended which he did and lost. That doesn't rule out his defense of the matter of him having the original molds. You guys sure like to milk this one. His website is still up. He's still producing helmets and armor. People are still getting helmets and armor. I don't see any big victory here. Ya let's keep an eye on our tracking numbers because AA certainly cannot be trusted because of a loss regarding jurisdiction. That certainly must mean he doesn't have the original molds nor created the original helmets in spite of evidence to the contrary. :rolleyes

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1201026[/snapback]​

[/b]

Umm, if I recall reading it correctly, AA claimed to have the originals and that was the start of LFL's case right there. AA's attornies tried to turn it into a jurisdictional case over a copyright infringement. I could be reading the court docs wrong, but it doesn't seem it was based on jurisdiction at all. That was an afterthought.

Oh, and what evidence to the contrary has AA provided?

 

[Darbycrash]

Sithlord nothing you can say at this point will magically give AA a defense in this matter.
You guys kept basing his defense on jurisdiction and those original moulds. He offered no defense when given the chance. LFL claimed in the complaint that AA was not using the original moulds so since there was no defense from AA I would think that was the case. I also seem to remember Jez saying that AA talked to his lawyers and claimed he had the right to sell those helmets. Well we never saw any of this stuff that you guys kept talking about. Sithlord I honestly wish you would admit that there was no defense and give it up already.

 

[Stormy320]

Well - whatever the outcome - I feel I was taken advantage of by AA. I paid way too much for what I got.

This is another example of someone taking advantage of the Star Wars name and misleading the most devoted fans.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Darbycrash, the fact is that AA has not defended himself over the issues of copyright ownership, Original Moulds etc.

His only response thus far was to question the legitimacy of the Californian Courts to rule over this case. He lost that and backed off, presumably his legal advice was that LFL would still be hard pressed to execute any US applied awards and that one way or another, LFL would need to bring action in the UK.

Its incredibly naive of anyone to assume that “failure to respond = guilt”.

IMO this still has some way to go and IÂ’m sure that if there were any international lawyers reading this, they would probably agree :lol

Cheers

Jez

edit typo

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Mar 8 2006, 12:38 AM
Sithlord nothing you can say at this point will magically give AA a defense in this matter.
You guys kept basing his defense on jurisdiction and those original moulds. He offered no defense when given the chance. LFL claimed in the complaint that AA was not using the original moulds so since there was no defense from AA I would think that was the case. I also seem to remember Jez saying that AA talked to his lawyers and claimed he had the right to sell those helmets. Well we never saw any of this stuff that you guys kept talking about. Sithlord I honestly wish you would admit that there was no defense and give it up already.

[snapback]1201201[/snapback]​

The trial never went that far as it was limited to jurisdiction. AA's lawyers would not proceed in the USA because it was not the correct forum for the question of rights given that the work AA did in 1976 was in the UK under UK labor laws. No contract, no rights, UK law. Employed in the USA, the rights automatically go to the employer. This is a fundamental difference and so the reason the case has gone to this point is simple. There was a complaint and AA's lawyers issued a response in relation to jurisdiction, not AA's rights to the work. And as far as evidence goes, I do seem to recall a few photos taken at a certain Shepperton Studios back in 1976 of certain helmets and armor from a certain obscure production at the time . I also seem to recall that members of the production crew at the time can corroborate AA's role in the production...but all we heard from LFL is a few buyers of AA helmets saying they received them :rolleyes. What a riveting case that was .

EDIt: so in a way you are right...the defense was focused on jurisdiction since CA was not the appropriate venue for questioning the rights of AA. It IS the right venue to question the rights of LFL. Because it was based on jurisdiction, the trial for rights never took place. Thus no evidence could be brought forward by AA's lawyers since the first premise of inappropriate jurisdiction by AA's lawyers was negated by the CA judge. Perhaps in a civil case default does imply guilt, but that doesn't help this forum understand who actually has the rights or not. To read into the default as if it justifies LFL claim to molds belonging to and created by AA is fallacious. Again, I'm not defending AA, I'm defending the logic behind this case and the way that this forum seems to want to interpret it purely for the reason of condemning AA even without there having been a real trial with evidence presented from BOTH sides.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[Darbycrash]

Sithlord my point is everyone seemed to expect this amazing loop hole defense which we never saw. Bottom line is his lack of defense and the default ruling definitely means that he in fact does not have the right to make the helmets. Also Thomas I am glad to see you do concede that a default verdict in a civil case does in fact imply guilt.

Based on AA's track record with the wording of the unaltered original moulds and the use of a recasted MR stand. Its no surprise that he was'nt able to deliver this amazing smoke and mirrors defense. Also I believe at this point and Flynn correct if I am wrong LFL could have customs cease any SDS helmets being shipped into the United States.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by SithLord+Mar 8 2006, 05:52 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Mar 8 2006, 05:52 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Mar 8 2006, 12:38 AM
Sithlord nothing you can say at this point will magically give AA a defense in this matter.
You guys kept basing his defense on jurisdiction and those original moulds. He offered no defense when given the chance. LFL claimed in the complaint that AA was not using the original moulds so since there was no defense from AA I would think that was the case. I also seem to remember Jez saying that AA talked to his lawyers and claimed he had the right to sell those helmets. Well we never saw any of this stuff that you guys kept talking about. Sithlord I honestly wish you would admit that there was no defense and give it up already.

[snapback]1201201[/snapback]​

The trial never went that far as it was limited to jurisdiction. AA's lawyers would not proceed in the USA because it was not the correct forum for the question of rights given that the work AA did in 1976 was in the UK under UK labor laws. No contract, no rights, UK law. Employed in the USA, the rights automatically go to the employer. This is a fundamental difference and so the reason the case has gone to this point is simple. There was a complaint and AA's lawyers issued a response in relation to jurisdiction, not AA's rights to the work. And as far as evidence goes, I do seem to recall a few photos taken at a certain Shepperton Studios back in 1976 of certain helmets and armor from a certain obscure production at the time . I also seem to recall that members of the production crew at the time can corroborate AA's role in the production...but all we heard from LFL is a few buyers of AA helmets saying they received them :rolleyes. What a riveting case that was .

EDIt: so in a way you are right...the defense was focused on jurisdiction since CA was not the appropriate venue for questioning the rights of AA. It IS the right venue to question the rights of LFL. Because it was based on jurisdiction, the trial for rights never took place. Thus no evidence could be brought forward by AA's lawyers since the first premise of inappropriate jurisdiction by AA's lawyers was negated by the CA judge. Perhaps in a civil case default does imply guilt, but that doesn't help this forum understand who actually has the rights or not. To read into the default as if it justifies LFL claim to molds belonging to and created by AA is fallacious. Again, I'm not defending AA, I'm defending the logic behind this case and the way that this forum seems to want to interpret it purely for the reason of condemning AA even without there having been a real trial with evidence presented from BOTH sides.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1201300[/snapback]​

[/b]

I don't seem to recall LFL disputing his participation in the production of Star Wars, but there was no SDS back in 1976. One of his claims was "original moulds" which was never substantiated. There is more circumstantial evidence to show he recast most of his "original" items than there is to support him having original anything.

 

[JediCarl]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Mar 8 2006, 11:13 AM
I don't seem to recall LFL disputing his participation in the production of Star Wars, but there was no SDS back in 1976. One of his claims was "original moulds" which was never substantiated. There is more circumstantial evidence to show he recast most of his "original" items than there is to support him having original anything.

[snapback]1201408[/snapback]​

Exactly. It's been fair to assume all along that AA was a fraud in many respects. He not only infringed on LFL copyrights, he mislead customers and collectors and essentially bilked them out of God knows how much money. I'm personally glad and thankful that I saw through him from Day 1... but that's only because I was lucky enough to have my informed speculation backed up by people within LFL itself.

In fact, once the smoke clears I actually believe some of the facts in this whole will indeed start to surface, and it won't paint a flattering picture of AA.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Mar 8 2006, 11:13 AM
I don't seem to recall LFL disputing his participation in the production of Star Wars, but there was no SDS back in 1976. One of his claims was "original moulds" which was never substantiated. There is more circumstantial evidence to show he recast most of his "original" items than there is to support him having original anything.

[snapback]1201408[/snapback]​

I agree about LFL not disputing his participation in the SW production although that role was lessened somewhat by LFL in the complaint which, based on AA's personal account, is inaccurate. Consider that he may not have incorporated SDS back then but his workplace was next to or at Shepperton Studios. Again, unless we see documentation of his business being called SDS then, it's hard to say for sure. Plus, in the strictest sense, even if he modified the molds to make his recent run, or used new molds, he maintains to have the originals. My own comparison of the interiors of original TK helmets and the SDS early pulls corroborates that somewhat, at least in the face section. TE has an original helmet yet has made no effort to make such detailed comparisons. Admittedly if things like the tears or ears are different I would understand there not being an apparent need to conduct such detailed comparisons, but again it's reasonable to assume that if AA did the original work, that he may still have the original molds. So far we cannot discount that just because he's produced what a few here think of as substandard TK helmets. His lawyers would have to be convinced he had the goods before they would advise him of his rights, wouldn't you agree?

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[atacpdx]

1st to clarify....

I own a 15 attorney firm. While probably qualified, I am not an attorney myself. What I write here is based on opinions and the experiences of my 2 most senior attorneys, both highly experienced in corporate and international law.

Now...

The case in the U.S. was not Jurisdictional only. Thomas et.al. you guys are misinformed or misreading. In the eyes of the US courts, they ruled via default in favor of LFL on the issues of right to produce and original molds. If this were a criminal trial, the judge would have said "guilty" as he banged the gavel. He is now violating a court decision every time he sells to someone here in the States, plain and simple. Plain english...America's courts have ruled AA was wrong and has no right to sell SW items.

Now as for the Hague and all the other "theories" being put forth here...

The UK and U.S. have treaties in place for corporate transactions that allow LFL to petition a UK Magistrate directly with regards to damages awarded here. The Hague will have nothing to do with it. A UK magistrate will alter the damage amounts in accordance with UK laws and will issue a writ of demand for payment against AA. AA will have only 1 or 2 courses of action to limit the damages. BK will be one of them. Now at that point, I would expect LFL to petition the magistrate to also honor the decision of the US court with regards to UK sales under our international copywrite treaties. The odds are in LFL's favor for victory on that due to the US default.

However miracles can never be ruled out.

Still, to say that this is all some grand strategy of AA's attorney is a real stretch. My guess is they are trying to simply make the best of a bad situation, ie giving the guilty man the best defense possible. This type of case plays out 5-10 times a quarter between US/UK companies. The party accused of infringement usually loses and goes under/flees in the dead of night with the money. It is sad to see but I'll lay odds this is exactly how it plays out.

Hope that clarifies things...

But again, Jez, Thomas etc. in the eyes of US courts, the issue of AA's legal right to make and sell these items has now been decided and AA lost...in fact he never did more than throw up a legal equivalent of the hail mary pass.

 

[foxbatkllr]

Originally posted by SithLord@Mar 8 2006, 08:48 AM
His lawyers would have to be convinced he had the goods before they would advise him of his rights, wouldn't you agree?

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1201478[/snapback]​

Disagree. Lawyers aren't always right...and even worse, people don't always follow the advice of their lawyers. If Lawyers were always right, then our court system would be in a mess.

IMLE, AA is smoked at this point. I have to think the UK courts will enforce a judgment from a federal court of the U.S. By allowing default judgment, AA has admitted everything that LFL alleges. In the eyes of the U.S. courts, AA is at fault.

 

[Gytheran]

... but again it's reasonable to assume that if AA did the original work, that he may still have the original molds.

Quit toting this deceitful claim. It is not at all reasonable and only perpetuates AA's means to outright LIE to his customers and steal their money under false pretenses. If you can prove your theory, by all means go for it... but until then, quit spreading misinformation.

So far we cannot discount that just because he's produced what a few here think of as substandard TK helmets. (Substandard?? How about downright INCORRECT) His lawyers would have to be convinced he had the goods before they would advise him of his rights, wouldn't you agree?

I don't agree at all. If YOU cannot see the discrepancies between a REAL stormtrooper helmet and the one AA sells, how in the hell do you expect lawyers to?.?

Until proven otherwise, AA does NOT have the original helmet mo(u)lds. His word means dick(helmets, armor, stands, court case, etc), his helmets do not match ANY screen used helmet to date(trapezoid anyone?), and he has not provided ONE single shred of evidence to support having the original mo(u)lds.

At this point, anyone following this from the start and yet STILL taking this man at his word is beyond gullible. I have a bridge, I need money, and will sell for cheap. PM if interested. :rolleyes

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by JediCarl@Mar 8 2006, 12:24 PM

Exactly. It's been fair to assume all along that AA was a fraud in many respects. He not only infringed on LFL copyrights, he mislead customers and collectors and essentially bilked them out of God knows how much money.  I'm personally glad and thankful that I saw through him from Day 1... but that's only because I was lucky enough to have my informed speculation backed up by people within LFL itself.

Again this is an assumption. There's nothing wrong with stating our own opinions but to make them statements of guilt on someone elses' part...I don't support that. Even if I attack someone for recasting here, I'll do my research and try to establish some kind of tangible evidence. We've not seen AA present his evidence. We've not seen the molds yet so how can we be sure? We can't. I realize we'd all like the answers but this default situation hasn't helped us understand the truth of whether he's got the original molds, that he made them and that therefore he has rights to them under UK law. So to label him a fraudster in lieu of such evidence is unfortunate. If he recast an original artistic design of a helmet stand or used the imperial symbol then fine he might be in trouble. One could say "why doesn't he just show the molds, then?". There's I'm sure a very good legal reason he does not. One reason I could think of is...well if he doesn't have them and so-and-so claims he does, then so-and-so should be able to describe them . Again, our insufficient knowledge of the case makes it impossible to state anything with assurance. This is a forum in which we can enjoy props and prop replicas. The original maker of the TK, etc. helmets has offered such replicas and we were privy to early glimpses of them and had a say in their development...we essentially gave our ok with of course some reservations by the accuracy experts. Since other helmet makers here have taken issue to the original maker producing helmets, it is easy to say without proof that AA has no rights. Just because LFL says he doesn't doesn't make LFL's claim true. For example, if the original maker of the Darth Vader helmets started offering helmets for sale from the original molds, he may think twice before advertising to this forum. How this forum behaves for the interest of a few helmet makers here could affect the forum for some time to come. If we consider the case rationally and let it unfold without passing judgement, I think the forum is better for it.

The RPF was mentioned by name in the updated complaint. Does LFL read the RPF? If so, they would have gone after the helmet makers that are here already. If they don't read it, then how did they find out?


:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Gytheran@Mar 8 2006, 01:35 PM

... but again it's reasonable to assume that if AA did the original work, that he may still have the original molds.

Quit toting this deceitful claim. It is not at all reasonable and only perpetuates AA's means to outright LIE to his customers and steal their money under false pretenses. If you can prove your theory, by all means go for it... but until then, quit spreading misinformation.

I don't need to address the rest of your post since the fact that you refer to my statement as "a deceitful claim" is enough.

I stated that he may have the molds. It is an educated supposition. It is not a claim. Therefore how can it be deceitful if I am not stating a fact but a supposition. I suppose in your universe of the English language people can make deceitful suppositions, but not in this one.

Steal? AA has now stolen something? That's news to me. Let's see your evidence. AA provided product for payment. If some people here think the product is not authentic that's for them to discuss with AA.

Why don't you talk with AA then if you think I am "spreading misinformation". You know NOTHING about what AA has or does not have and therefore NOTHING about what rights he has so do NOT insinuate that I am being deceitful.

T

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Gytheran@Mar 8 2006, 01:35 PM
[
I don't agree at all.  If YOU cannot see the discrepancies between a REAL stormtrooper helmet and the one AA sells, how in the hell do you expect lawyers to?.?

You don't even know what he showed his lawyers so your statement is laughable. I MIGHT know what he showed his lawyers so give it a rest.

T