SDS Court case

[TK765]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 28 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]1327990[/snapback]</div>

Fun indeed.
What is highlighted in bold is false. There were no models or sculptures prior to AA presenting the prototype helmet(s) to LFL. But they needed to add that because my opinion is that they would not win the case on the basis of McQuarrie's paintings alone.
[/b]

Thats YOUR OPINION and one not based on any facts or reality. I can't believe you still believe that fairy tale that prototype helmets were presented to LFL for approval. :lol

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 28 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]1327990[/snapback]</div>

I fail to understand how if someone defaults that then the defendant can add on whatever he wants to the accusations. It is not ethical to do so without permitting defense by the plaintiff...IMHO.
[/b]

Now thats a good one. :confused He was given the chance to defend and he ignored it, yet somehow you still "fail to understand" :lol Understatment of the year.

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 28 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]1327990[/snapback]</div>

The bottom line is, TE took what he could learn from AA and turned it against him.
[/b]

Yeah he learned AA didn't know anything and was as mad as the rest of us that we were lied to.

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 28 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]1327990[/snapback]</div>

I have no idea what conversations Matt had with AA, but it would be impossible for AA to have said this. It is false. And that is not based on anything I've heard or read from AA. There are at least three people in charge of aspects of the production at that time who would also know that this is not true.
[/b]

Oh well in that case, its ok everyone, Thomas wasn't there, didn't hear it or read about it and because of that its not true.... :lol

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 28 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]1327990[/snapback]</div>

He is also miscontruing what Andrew told him....and everyone...that he did not have the original molds for the armor. That's common knowledge, but Matt presents it as if Andrew has no molds whatsoever. Matt knows exactly what AA has and failed to mention it in regard to the armor. For the record, I have doubts about the armor....I agree that AA might have copied some parts. But there's no doubt in my mind about the helmets.
[/b]

Wow, your so smart to know everything Matt does, maybe AA should have had you defend him. Oh thats right, he never showed up.

 

[jorusfett]

<div class='quotetop'>(Brak's Buddy @ Sep 28 2006, 10:03 AM) [snapback]1328049[/snapback]</div>

Andrew couldn't remeber the exact shade of grey for the trooper details? HOLY HUMBROL, BATMAN. WE HAVE HIM. WE NAILED HIM. THERE IS THE SMOKING GUN. Andrew couldn't remember the shade of grey he used on what amounted to a small side project THIRTY YEARS AGO. THIS PROVES EVERYTHING. HOW COULD WE HAVE BEEN SO WRONG? HOW COULD WE HAVE DOUBTED?

Thanks for that "expert" revelation... :rolleyes :rolleyes
[/b]

The above sounds just like our government "cherry picking" things out of a report and running with them to lead us into war. Time to grab the torches and pitchforks and go after TE now....

The whole point of this, if you read the whole statement, is that this was just one of many items that TE brought up to indicate that AA didn't really know what he was talking about and therefore casting doubts on his credibility. I agree that he shouldn't have remembered the correct shade of gray, but the picture as a whole is what matters the most. This is one minute detail that you are taking WAY out of proportion.

This document is a long read so I wouldn't expect you to list everything here, but you should look at the overall picture.

I am not defending either party in this case, but it doesn't look good when AA doesn't show up to defend himself. This basically admits guilt and he's just trying to find some sort of loophole to get off easy in the UK.

 

[Art Andrews]

<div class='quotetop'>(jorusfett @ Sep 28 2006, 07:03 PM) [snapback]1328289[/snapback]</div>

The above sounds just like our government "cherry picking" things out of a report and running with them to lead us into war. Time to grab the torches and pitchforks and go after TE now....

The whole point of this, if you read the whole statement, is that this was just one of many items that TE brought up to indicate that AA didn't really know what he was talking about and therefore casting doubts on his credibility. I agree that he shouldn't have remembered the correct shade of gray, but the picture as a whole is what matters the most. This is one minute detail that you are taking WAY out of proportion.

This document is a long read so I wouldn't expect you to list everything here, but you should look at the overall picture.

I am not defending either party in this case, but it doesn't look good when AA doesn't show up to defend himself. This basically admits guilt and he's just trying to find some sort of loophole to get off easy in the UK.
[/b]

jorusfett,

I understand completely where you are coming from and I did read Matt's entire statement. While I can't argue (and already said so) what he had to say about the differences between the AA helmet and the real deal, I think little nitpicking things like the paint color is simply absurd. Anyone who really believes that AA's not remembering the shade of a certain color from 30 years given the circumstances (he was making helmets for what would have most likely been considered an Ed Wood film at the time) adds to the doubt of his credibility is utterly ridiculous. Period. That doesn't add to the other statements Matt made. In my opinion it takes away from it as it is such a ludicrous triviality to expect anyone to remeber from 5 years ago, much less 30. To me, this is little more than grandstanding on Matt's part.

What seems even more silly to me is the whole point of trying to prove that AA helmet is not like real helmets. So what? It is a LIKENESS ISSUE. So AA didn't use or even remeber/know the correct strapping in the helmets... so what? Maybe he didn't put the straps in. So what? Same thing with the stickers vs painted details issue. So what that AA didn't paint his details in like the real thing. Again, it is absurd if Matt is trying to use that to cast doubt on his credibility. The lawsuit here is over copyright infringement but Matt is making points about the dissimilar features between the AA and the real helmet. At the end of the day, do the AA helmets still have the LIKENESS of a stormtrooper? Heck yeah. So is AA infringing on LFL's copyright? Sure seems so. Does it make any difference that the helmets are not exactly alike? No, not for this issue. Does it mean that AA is a fraud because he can't remeber everything he did 30 years ago? No. I just find Matt's entire statement pointless and purposeless aside from him getting a chance to huff and puff and lash out at the man who snubbed him. Now, if this were a lawsuit regarding all the angry AA helmet owners who believe they bought a helmet off the original mold and supposedly exact in every detail, Matt's contributions would make a lot more sense. Here all I see is sour grapes.



One more thing.... I found it INCREDIBLY hypocritical for Matt to point out having owned two helmets, having approached AA to learn more about the making of the helmets and then pointing out how he had vaccuformed over 1000 pieces in the past few years... WOW. What balls. To put all the puzzlepieces out there that show that you are just as guilty as the guy you are helping hang... amazing. Basically turning snitch for leniency and getting your competition and hated enemy out of the way all in one motion. Nicely played... especially considering how he had boasted to me about having made over a quarter of a million infringing on the exact copyrights he is helping LFL crucify AA for.

 

[Cenobyte]

Actually he admitted to Vacuforming thousands of items. (In reference to not just trooper armor) to establish he knows about that aspect.

TE was a vacu-former making other items for businesses before he ever got into stormtrooper making.

 

[Art Andrews]

Now who is wanting to turn a blind eye to the obvious....

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Does it make any difference that the helmets are not exactly alike? No, not for this issue.[/b]

In direct relation to the copyright/trademark infringments no, but in regards to LFL's claims for relief under the "unfair competition" it's another story...

It falls under the "false designation of origin" part of these "unfair competition" laws, and thus make it 100% relevant...

As was said above you have to look at the WHOLE picture not nit pick little parts of this case and criticize them out of context, it's one big picture...

 

[SithLord]

and (also as I recall) one of the head guys (Freeborn? Mollo?) admitted going to AA and asking him to sculpt the final product.

Actually, Lord Abbadon wrote that. Please see post #176 .

What AA could have meant is that there were people assigned by John Mollo to deal with the problem of making the helmets and they failed and the project was turned over to AA.

Both the above in your own words even lead me to believe that AA picked up a failed project and just finished it to the final form used to vacuum over... Not that he created the whole Trooper likeness all by his self, that would be reading between the lines and speculating...

Actually that's not the case. There was no "initial form" for the helmets before AA's work. I cannot speak to the armor, but there's no doubt about the helmets.

Matt is miscontruing that to mean that someone else had already produced the molds.

I'll even agree that AA probably had a part in making the molds, as for the sculpt that the molds were made from well...


Let me know what you think. The molds would be positives, correct? So the original sculpture would have to be molded and then a postive made from that which could serve as the mold for the vacuforming process. So there would be both the sculpture and the molds for vacuforming...do you think? I'm actually just discussing this now as that is how I see it at this point.

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Actually, Lord Abbadon wrote that. Please see post #176 smile.gif.[/b]

Point taken, my mistake but my conclusion is the same...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Let me know what you think. The molds would be positives, correct? So the original sculpture would have to be molded and then a postive made from that which could serve as the mold for the vacuforming process. So there would be both the sculpture and the molds for vacuforming...do you think? I'm actually just discussing this now as that is how I see it at this point.[/b]

Clay sculpture (most likely destroyed in the molding process) negative (alginate) mold pulled from that and a positive positive buck made for vacuum forming...

Since it was low budget, I'm guessing low quality at all stages... I honestly don't see the suggested "proprietary resin buck" claims, I see plaster of paris or another plaster, as good enough lets get it done...

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 28 2006, 11:01 PM) [snapback]1328452[/snapback]</div>

Clay sculpture (most likely destroyed in the molding process) negative (alginate) mold pulled from that and a positive positive buck made for vacuum forming...

Since it was low budget, I'm guessing low quality at all stages... I honestly don't see the suggested "proprietary resin buck" claims, I see plaster of paris or another plaster, as good enough lets get it done...
[/b]

Why plaster? Would plaster hold up to the pressure and the stress of release around the undercut? If it was plaster, there should be evidence of that inside the original pulls....both from 1976 and from the recent SDS pulls. What signs would indicate that the pulls came from a plaster mold as opposed to another material? I do not think it was plaster, but I am not exactly sure (yet) what it was made of. If it was plaster, that would be something to look into as far as the interior of the helmets....texture? There's a texture inside....very fine lines....like sanding.....on the inside of the pulls...I've been wondering about that.

Here's an example...from my SDS #12.

 

[exoray]

Plaster is still the primary vacuum forming buck medium for quick low/medium volume runs... Just a guess but probably upwards of 90% of all vacuum formed stuff offered up in this community is from plaster bucks, including armor and helmets...

As for anything you would notice as far as signs, I doubt it plaster will and can hold details very well even scratches... But, it won't last forever and is one of the reasons I hightly doubt AA's claims of using the "original" molds as no matter what they were made of short of metal, they would definently show signs of failing in a complicated pulls like the trooper helmet... Yet SDS #1 looks just like SDS #300, and I HIGHLY doubt that metal bucks were made for a low budget movie when you see signs of taped together suits with chipping paint, the failer and glitches of a plaster buck would have been equally ruled "good enough" IMO Add to that the dollar value that SDS claims he made producing these and I can't see him sinking that much money into bucks for forming... Even by todays standards with cheap superior resins it will cost a boat load to make resin bucks for a whole suit of armor w/ helmet, and there isn't many alternatives left expect plaster...

Not to mention (again IMO) 30 year old 70s technology resins would in most cases be beyond brittle if subjected to the heat and force of vacuum forming... This is evident if you look at fiberglass on old boats and the ever popular phenolic resin things from the 70's, even the epoxy resins of those days was no where near the standards it is today...

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 29 2006, 12:12 AM) [snapback]1328491[/snapback]</div>

But, it won't last forever and is one of the reasons I hightly doubt AA's claims of using the "original" molds as no matter what they were made of short of metal, they would definently show signs of failing in a complicated pulls like the trooper helmet... Yet SDS #1 looks just like SDS #300, and I HIGHLY doubt that metal bucks were made for a low budget movie when you see signs of taped together suits with chipping paint, the failer and glitches of a plaster buck would have been equally ruled "good enough" IMO Add to that the dollar value that SDS claims he made producing these and I can't see him sinking that much money into bucks for forming... Even by todays standards with cheap superior resins it will cost a boat load to make resin bucks for a whole suit of armor w/ helmet, and there isn't many alternatives left expect plaster...

Not to mention (again IMO) 30 year old 70s technology resins would in most cases be beyond brittle if subjected to the heat and force of vacuum forming... This is evident if you look at fiberglass on old boats and the ever popular phenolic resin things from the 70's, even the epoxy resins of those days was no where near the standards it is today...
[/b]

I mostly agree. Although whether helmet #1 is the same as #300 I actually doubt. I used to have #54...that was a bit different from my #12 in terms of surface details. I wager the inside of a #300 will be much different than my #12. That would be interesting to study, actually. Maybe I should buy another one to compare :lol .

By resin do you mean just pure resin? Keep in mind that the SDS armor doesn't come from original molds so that's a different scenario than the helmets. Almost certainly you are right...metal bucks would not have been used back then....impossible given the amount of money it would have cost to make them. If resin molds were to survive, they would at least have to be solid, would you agree? I'll look into your idea that the resins back then would become brittle with heating and the types of resins they could have used. I remember the fiberglass of boats in the 70s, actually since we used to have our own lake to boat on when I was a kid and remember how hard and "hollow" sounding the fiberglass was.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

I think there are several different issues here

1) TE’s declaration is significant to the LFL case. Key things like Matt recounting a conversation with AA which effectively states that AA didn’t sculpt the Stormtrooper helmet design(para 16) - A MAJOR whammy if true – although personally I seriously doubt it. Since the case was not contested by SDS will we ever know if they were correct?

2) The ethical position of TE helping LFL in their case. Exoray has already said he believes that is okay. Does this mean that if someone does something similar to another in this hobby or forum (say presents information to Lucasfilm or Paramount or whoever) then thatÂ’s also okay? If not then why not?

3) The clear bias of an “expert”witness, who is also a major provider of illicit Stormtrooper helmets and armour (etc)over the past 5-6 years. Did LFL know this – the scale of his production?

I see this as a watershed. IMO what TE has done amounts to the most reprehensible act I’ve encountered in this hobby and I'm glad others have also voiced their disgust. Whatever he received from LFL for his “consultation”, I hope it was worth it.

Cheers

Jez

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'>(BingoBongo275 @ Sep 29 2006, 03:35 AM) [snapback]1328582[/snapback]</div>

Does this mean that if someone does something similar to another in this hobby or forum (say presents information to Lucasfilm or Paramount or whoever) then that’s also okay? If not then why not?
[/b]

When it's in regards to a court case yep, I will not hold it against them...

I guess I was brought up with respect for the court system as a whole and would do my duty as a citizen to tell the truth to the courts when called upon to do so... If you are one of the people that looks the other way and shrugs off the courts then be it, I won't hold it against you but it's not the way I was brought up...

**Edit

Also note that if the case continued (or any case for that matter) anyone that had relavent knowledge could have had a summons/subpoena issued to them by the court to be a witness and been in contempt of court (that means jail time and fines for you) for not doing so... So yeah TE did it willingfull but who's to say he wouldn't have been forced if things progressed, as he did have first hand knowledge in regards to AA...

 

[Aegis159]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 29 2006, 10:06 AM) [snapback]1328682[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(BingoBongo275 @ Sep 29 2006, 03:35 AM) [snapback]1328582[/snapback]

Does this mean that if someone does something similar to another in this hobby or forum (say presents information to Lucasfilm or Paramount or whoever) then thatÂ’s also okay? If not then why not?
[/b]

When it's in regards to a court case yep, I will not hold it against them...

I guess I was brought up with respect for the court system as a whole and would do my duty as a citizen to tell the truth to the courts when called upon to do so... If you are one of the people that looks the other way and shrugs off the courts then be it, I won't hold it against you but it's not the way I was brought up...
[/b][/quote]


Then the real question here should be who contacted whom first?

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'>(Aegis159 @ Sep 29 2006, 09:21 AM) [snapback]1328694[/snapback]</div>

Then the real question here should be who contacted whom first?[/b]

No one would take the answer as fact because of personal issues... That is already very clear, they have made up thier minds...

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

exoray, thats quite a convenient way of trying to absolving someone of criticism.

Bottom line is TE involvement in this case was before it became a “court case”. How did the “consultation” start, did he go to them and say “I’ve got some dirty info on AA?”

Had TE not got involved we just donÂ’t know what would have transpired. However we do know that the testimony he made has had an influential affect on the case (or it wouldnÂ’t have been used).

Like I said before, what if someone goes to Lucasfilm and says “well I know this guy who’s been making replicas of your props for the last 5 years and I know you’re trying to stamp down on this”, would that be okay?

Do you get my point? When/where does it become acceptable? Aegis159 makes a valid point as to who made contact first but the reality is that could never be proved either way, giving anyone (including TE in this instance) carte blanche to inform on anyone they like.

Cheers

Jez

 

[SethB6025]

This is hearsay to a degree, so go ahead and take it with a grain of salt (I know you will anyway )
From what I understand, there was a relationship between Matt & LFL preceding this whole situation, so they contacted him as part of an ongoing relatioinship. So I think the "who called first" question is unanswerable because the AA subject was likely part of an ongoing dialogue on a number of subjects. As opposed to a cold call by one party to the other specifically regarding AA-SDS. Also, I think it's safe to say that LFL is/was fully aware of what/how much/etc. Matt was making in terms of armor. So, there's what I gather. FWIW/IIRC/etc.

 

[Apollo]

<div class='quotetop'>(SethB6025 @ Sep 29 2006, 11:05 AM) [snapback]1328718[/snapback]</div>

Also, I think it's safe to say that LFL is/was fully aware of what/how much/etc. Matt was making in terms of armor. So, there's what I gather. FWIW/IIRC/etc.
[/b]

Good point.

LFL pretty much knows whats going on.

Needless to say there are a few collectors that work there. :lol

 

[DARKSIDE72]

Matt's involvement doesn't matter... He never blatantly sold anything in full view of the public. He diddn't thumb his nose at LFL. Like the majority of dealers he was low key in his dealings with the public. All of this unlike AA who dropped his pants and mooned the licencee and copywrite holder. So what's the big deal...? It's a laughable arguement.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 29 2006, 10:06 AM) [snapback]1328682[/snapback]</div>

Also note that if the case continued (or any case for that matter) anyone that had relavent knowledge could have had a summons/subpoena issued to them by the court to be a witness and been in contempt of court (that means jail time and fines for you) for not doing so... So yeah TE did it willingfull but who's to say he wouldn't have been forced if things progressed, as he did have first hand knowledge in regards to AA...
[/b]

Quite true.


<div class='quotetop'>(Aegis159 @ Sep 29 2006, 10:21 AM) [snapback]1328694[/snapback]</div>

Then the real question here should be who contacted whom first?
[/b]

Yes, what I was asking earlier since if he approached LFL, then he did so knowing there was a conflict of interest. If LFL approached him, it clear he gave his account of his communications with AA, but if they knew the context of the communications (possible business deal?), then they would not be able to use his testimony and he himself would be listed as "one of the 100".