SDS Court case

Sithlord in the Spirit of Fact, Common Sense and whatever else you said....

Default is not the same as a draw in chess....A draw in chess is a tie.

Judgement by Default in the courts is a win...pure and simple. It is like a team getting a Win in the ol "W" column because the other side forefited or failed to show. It means your side won the game and never had to suit up.

Now you can spin this all you want but as a person with extensive experience let me say again and loudly....

AA LOST THE LEGAL BATTLE.

All that remains now is for LFL to pursue the judgement in the UK courts if they want. If they do decide to pursue it, the UK court will review the judgement amounts and May/might/could possibly ask for some proof from LFL as to the number of violations alleged that the amount is based on but there will not be a "full trial" and AA will not have a chance to prove his claim. The hearing will be confined to the scope of the judgement amount as our international agreements will force the UK court to accept the Default judgement as a finding of fact.

So please quit spreading your faulty spin and vague assertions on this. It is a black and white legal course that this case will folow now that AA defaulted. The only question is if LFL will pursue the judgement and I can't imagine they won't.
 
<div class='quotetop'>(atacpdx @ Sep 25 2006, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1326021[/snapback]</div>
AA LOST THE LEGAL BATTLE.

All that remains now is for LFL to pursue the judgement in the UK courts if they want. If they do decide to pursue it, the UK court will review the judgement amounts and May/might/could possibly ask for some proof from LFL as to the number of violations alleged that the amount is based on but there will not be a "full trial" and AA will not have a chance to prove his claim. The hearing will be confined to the scope of the judgement amount as our international agreements will force the UK court to accept the Default judgement as a finding of fact.

So please quit spreading your faulty spin and vague assertions on this. It is a black and white legal course that this case will folow now that AA defaulted. The only question is if LFL will pursue the judgement and I can't imagine they won't.
[/b]
Click to expand...


There was no real battle as it went to default. Until the UK courts decides the outcome, no one has won. They will make their own judgement based on international and UK law. It's no spin, it's fact that there has to be mutal agreement from both country's parties (courts) to the validity of the judgement/settlement requested. The UK courts won't automatically have to accept the California courts judgement. Otherwise any court from any country could impose it's law on the courts of another country. There are international rules governing that process. We have been through this before in a previous lengthy thread and I outlined those laws. Perhaps you missed that.




<div class='quotetop'>(atacpdx @ Sep 25 2006, 01:24 PM) [snapback]1326021[/snapback]</div>
Sithlord in the Spirit of Fact, Common Sense and whatever else you said....

Default is not the same as a draw in chess....A draw in chess is a tie.
[/b]
Click to expand...


http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Stalemate

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Draw_%28chess%29


If a UK court doesn't favor the judgement of the California courts, nothing will happen. ie: stalemate. The California court is out of its jurisdiction. So if you like to think they have won, well maybe in their little corner of the world, yes. But that won't stop SDS. Whatever the UK court does to determine whether it will abide by the California court judgement, I cannot say. But since it involves a UK citizen, it will not automatically grant settlement. One could also consider that an impasse.
 
Default is NOT a stalemate. It is a judgment. It is more like a forfeit than a draw. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Post all the chess links you like but my analysis is dead on. Your "lengthy" post in that other thread only applied if LFL had chosen the UK court for its original prosecution of their claim. They didn't. They now only have to petition the UK court with regards to payment of the judgement and the UK court will review the judgement amounts etc. but not whether the California court had jurisdiction. It will be like pursuing any other debtor who is in another country. You are sorely out of your grasp here Sithlord. I Co-Own a firm here in the States that deals with these issues on a fairly regular basis in the tech sector. You can read all the legal sites you want but till you actually have seen or been a part of doing it, it can be difficult to truly grasp how it all works. I think this is where you are running into confusion.
 
Clearly we have to wait and see what happens. If you like I will post the laws again. Arguing about it won't help. It is obvious that AA's lawyers let the case go to default...it didn't happen majically by itself. Do you not see what they are trying to do, in spite of being part of a firm that deals with that sort of thing every day?
 
I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but if LFL has "won" what is this new 30 odd page document they entered a couple of weeks back that contains all of Matt Gautier's/Trooper Experts "expert" testimony on why the SDS moulds cant be original?

If it was all over, why's LFL gone back to square one to prove its claim over copyright?

Cheers

Jez
 
I am struggling to see how you can draw a comparison to a default in legal matters to a stalemate in chess. Maybe I am missing something.
 
It's the outcome that's important.

I have that September 20th document now.

Ok, so now LFL is involking the Lanham act....with what evidence? I agree about the imperial logo but not the helmets/molds.

They want SDS to surrender all materials pertaining to the infringement.


:rolleyes
 
Very interesting. Thanks for posting the link. :)

The Lanham act claim, by the way, was not based on infringement of a trademark, but rather that since in advertising, SDS claimed they were using the original molds, they were passing off their own work as the work of the plaintiff.

They seem to have made a classic mistake... they filed a stipulation first, and THEN filed a challenge to personal jurisdiction. Once you've filed something other than a challenge to personal jurisdiction (at least in the US) you are considered amenable to jurisdiction; the idea being that if you're claiming the venue is too inappropriate or unfair to be binding on you, then participating further indicates you're able to do it anyway. The judge could have let that slide if he felt it really unfair, but didn't seem to in this case.

The calculation of damages was interesting though. 85% of replicas merchandising over $100 comes from the US... I'd have thought it in the 90% range. Extrapolating that to calculate SDS's damages seems to be a little reaching to me, since SDS is based in England; but since the defendant didn't show, the court just has to work with what information they have.

My guess is that if they keep the legal operations going, he'll try to challenge jurisdiction in England in the enforcement phase, but I can't imagine that would really work. Seems like he'd be better off trying to strike a deal at this point. Giving up his efforts to challenge to jurisdiction in exchange for lesser monetary damages.
 
Thanks for the interesting comments...onto phase II....enforcement. More legal stuff. More discussions. I love it. :lol
 
So it's up to the British Courts to decide - which comes back to the Hague convention.
I was told by a friend who is a barrister that cases that involve the Hague convention can go on for many years.
Am I to understand that if the British Courts comply with the U.S. judgement that AA could loose up to $15 million?
 
Let me get this straight.

Sith Lord kept trying to tell everyone that since the case went into default it would be reviewed for validity by a UK court

Then a bunch of people said "that's not true, the UK court System has to abide by California's decision".

And now it seems that Sith Lord was correct and the case will be reviewed by a UK court?

Is that correct?
 
so glad all of this is coming out now...

that way its not the EXACT same people on the EXACT same sides saying the EXACT same things from BOTH sides... :unsure

at least the SDS/AA vs. LFL threads DONT turn into a big OL paradox that then turn into flame wars and personal attacks... :unsure :thumbsdown

i dont think if it was proven that AA had the original moulds that the side against him would admit they were real, and that they were wrong about it

just as if it were proven that all AAs stuff was made from 2nd gen negative moulds made from another persons suits/helmets that the people who stand by his side would admit that THEY were wrong... :unsure

this @#$%. is a perverbial snake eating its @#$%.ing tale... :thumbsdown

but an interesting read... :p :lol

just my 2 cents
 
<div class='quotetop'>(Boba Debt @ Sep 25 2006, 10:14 PM) [snapback]1326163[/snapback]</div>
Let me get this straight.

Sith Lord kept trying to tell everyone that since the case went into default it would be reviewed for validity by a UK court

Then a bunch of people said "that's not true, the UK court System has to abide by California's decision".

And now it seems that Sith Lord was correct and the case will be reviewed by a UK court?

Is that correct?
[/b]
Click to expand...


No...the case (ie did AA infringe/have rights etc) will not be reviewed. Only the amount of damages awarded by the US court and allowed under UK Law will be reviewed by a UK court. Big Difference.
 
I have read the ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS that atacpdx posted and I think #4 pretty much covers what I am saying



The general principle of international law applicable in such cases is that a foreign state claims and exercises the right to examine judgments for four causes:

(1) to determine if the court had jurisdiction

(2) to determine whether the defendant was properly served

(3) to determine if the proceedings were vitiated by fraud

(4) to establish that the judgment is not contrary to the public policy of the foreign country.


If the UK court decides that CA Courts definition of Copyright Infringement is contrary the UKs definition of Copyright infringement they could simple not enforce the judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IndyFanChuck
I’m creating a new Grail Diary page guide/key
Replies
9
Views
3,138
Darthbauer
Darthbauer
ID10T
Corporal Rostock Build Thread
Replies
1
Views
1,073
ID10T
ID10T
LOM
An Analysis of ANH Lightsabers Timeline, Stunt Props, and Miscellaneous Theories
2
Replies
39
Views
9,435
PadawanLoLo
PadawanLoLo
MastahBlastah
Deep Dive: Han ANH Droid Caller (Kobold vs. Linhof)
2 3
Replies
46
Views
10,754
chubsANDdoggers
chubsANDdoggers
FranklyBuilt
MK85 Iron Man Cosplay w/ Infinity Stones - 100% 3D Printed (Pic and resource heavy)
Replies
19
Views
30,641
ReelClones
ReelClones
Back
Top