SDS Court case

[Lord Abaddon]

<div class='quotetop'>(Boba Debt @ Sep 25 2006, 09:00 PM) [snapback]1326351[/snapback]</div>

If he can turn on AA he can turn on anyone.

It's that whole "honor amongst thieves" code.

Plus the fact that Matt has probably made more money selling bootleg armor then just about any of the other sellers just adds insult to injury.


Kind of like Moogy call out AA for ethical violations.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.
[/b]

Exactly.

This isn't just about Matt, it's about how someone, anyone, could sink so low and be so self-serving as to do something like this. Who will go to Paramount and turn in someone for the right to make a phaser? Maybe someone will kick down a good fan prop maker here for the silver of getting in on a Firefly contract?

Think about it for a moment and think just *what* this entire hobby is about.

Those of you who are anti-AA...yes I've disagreed with you, but have no problem admitting when wrong about it all if that's the case. However you've all been saying time and again that AA brought attention to the hobby, to the replica makers of armor, that LFL might come down on everyone for this.

Well to me this is worse, now one of our own, from the inside, who has contacts with EVERY armor maker out there has just ratted out an armor maker for his own designs.

Will Gino be next? GF? Those who make FX still? Meatsock? What if LFL says to Matt..."So...how about those others on eBay? What do you know....?"

Speculation yes...but not just for Matt, I mean for anyone. Once a precedent is set, a deal made....

And Jax, as his friend it's expected you'd defend him. So be it. But be careful...friendships might not hold up long over money.

 

[Jumpin Jax]

<div class='quotetop'>(Lord Abaddon @ Sep 25 2006, 07:19 PM) [snapback]1326367[/snapback]</div>

Those of you who are anti-AA...yes I've disagreed with you, but have no problem admitting when wrong about it all if that's the case. However you've all been saying time and again that AA brought attention to the hobby, to the replica makers of armor, that LFL might come down on everyone for this.


And Jax, as his friend it's expected you'd defend him. So be it. But be careful...friendships might not hold up long over money.
[/b]

You have..........never admitted you were wrong. Never.
The hobby has been here a lot longer than aa has been in on it. The only attention he brought was negative when he DARED Lucas to do something about his business.

LA, you are so far out of your depth you are actually drowning. The only friendships I have seen end on this board was when some upstart wannabe ripped the guy off, and said "So what?" Keep your speculation and backpeddling defense close to the vest.
I defend him because he is my friend.
I support him because he is right.
JJ

 

[Lord Abaddon]

<div class='quotetop'>(Jumpin Jax @ Sep 25 2006, 09:30 PM) [snapback]1326371[/snapback]</div>

You have..........never admitted you were wrong. Never.
The hobby has been here a lot longer than aa has been in on it. The only attention he brought was negative when he DARED Lucas to do something about his business.

LA, you are so far out of your depth you are actually drowning. The only friendships I have seen end on this board was when some upstart wannabe ripped the guy off, and said "So what?" Keep your speculation and backpeddling defense close to the vest.
I defend him because he is my friend.
I support him because he is right.
JJ
[/b]

There has been no proof he is right...except his "word." So nothing to admit on my part, and still only speculation on yours.

Nothing was negative about what he was doing, until self-serving individuals decided to start screaming bloody murder, dropping comments and queries, and raising the roof. And nearly everyone was pissed because their vested interest didn't take and/or was threatened.

And I'm glad you admit he's your friend, then your position is clear and I don't fault people for standing by their friends. I have too...but sometimes it came back to bite me on the ass when I found out that friendship was very subjective, and extremely conditional, in some people's minds.

And now a question for you as his friend. If he is right, if he's proven truthful and gets his handout from LFL for his work...will he stop there and not go after anyone that is making similar products to what he'll be involved in? People he knew, worked with, or has as grudge against (like AA)?

 

[exoray]

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

This isn't just about Matt[/b]

Finally some truth, so why not leave he out of it... It's about SDS, so lets get back on topic...

Oh, wait when the lines of defense fall apart shoot the messenger...

Carry on... The speculation the Matt did this and Matt did this is fun to read, so what exactly did Matt do? And please back your claims up... Cricket... Cricket...

If you are saying Matt went to LFL and LFL didn't come to him prove it or stop spouting false speculations...

You would think Matt was behind the who SDS lawsuit if you let the people on this forum speculate long enough, owe wait they are already claiming Matt went after SDS, and he will go after more peole sheesh...

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 25 2006, 10:43 PM) [snapback]1326381[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

This isn't just about Matt[/b]

Finally some truth, so why not leave he out of it... It's about SDS, so lets get back on topic...

Oh, wait when the lines of defense fall apart shoot the messenger...

Carry on... The speculation the Matt did this and Matt did this is fun to read, so what exactly did Matt do? And please back your claims up... Cricket... Cricket...

If you are saying Matt went to LFL and LFL didn't come to him prove it or stop spouting false speculations...

You would think Matt was behind the who SDS lawsuit if you let the people on this forum speculate long enough, owe wait they are already claiming Matt went after SDS, and he will go after more peole sheesh...
[/b][/quote]


IF Matt originally approached AA to form a business relationship (true), and was turned down (true), and IF Matt has consulted LFL on this case against AA (possibly true?), that would be a conflict of interest to put it very mildly and puts the recent angle of the LFL accusations against AA being the creator of the helmets in question. So, yes, if this is really true, it is highly relevant to the case....and since he is at the center of the hobby in regard to stormtrooper gear, it may cut to the very heart of what the hobby is supposed to be about and what it is not supposed to be about. LFL will not hide Matt's involvement if it is true....you realize that, don't you?

 

[exoray]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 25 2006, 10:24 PM) [snapback]1326401[/snapback]</div>

and puts the recent angle of the LFL accusations against AA being the creator of the helmets in question.
[/b]

What? Where did you pull that out of? What did Matt say that puts this in question? Please do try and tell.

Sheesh...

I asked again what did Matt say??? Cricket... Cricket...

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

conflict of interest[/b]

Nobody denies a conflict of interest, but what bearing does that have on the facts if they are indead the real facts? I know for a fact that many pro-AA camp members have a conflict of interest in regards to having priority on low number helmets, lower prices, and... But, let me guess that conflict of interest doesn't count does it?

 

[gizmo]

I love this place.SOOOOO many breaches of the Code of conduct yet nothing has been done :angry


Ben

 

[TonyRB]

The Title of this thread is “SDS Court case, Does anyone know of any developments?”

TE is named in the Legal documents as a witness to the "validity of the molds." So its natural people will comment on Matt's involvement; itÂ’s a major part of the case. As for TE not being able to defend himself, since AA isn't a member here, the same applies.

 

[AnsonJames]

Mentioning TE in this thread is fair enough based on the fact he was involved in the court case.
Bashing someone who's not here to defend themselves IS against the rules the forum and shouldn't be happening.
Thomas does have a valid point when he says there was a conflict of interest when LFL used TE to give evidence - I wonder if LFL know about about the fact discussions took place between AA and SDS about a potential partnership?

Probably not.

Incidently does anyone have a transcript of TE's testimony - if not, is it available?
I've got a sneaking suspicion it would be very interesting to read.









Edited -expanded post

 

[gizmo]

Sure, talk about Matt being involved but don`t make up stories about how
he is involved or how he got involved unless you have proof thats all I`m saying.
There`s alot of mudslinging going on around here without any proof.


Ben

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 26 2006, 12:07 AM) [snapback]1326273[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(BingoBongo275 @ Sep 25 2006, 06:59 PM) [snapback]1326262[/snapback]

Bottom line is Matt saw an opportunity of getting close to LFL and getting one back on AA who had rejected his business venture. :thumbsdown [/b]

And you (a person who had a vested interest in SDS) now sees an opportunity to use this as ammunition for a personal attack against the compeditor, so who is the better man?

The Kettle sure is black...
[/b][/quote]

exoray, it is disingenuous to suggest that there can be any comparison between the two issues. Are you suggesting that we shouldnÂ’t mention the fact that Trooper Expert/Matt is assisting Lucasfilm in return for his gaining access into the Lucasfilm archives? And that us talking about this now is somehow comparable with his actions?

Over a year ago TE described his job title as “ LFL consultant” on the Introductions section of the RPB, mentioning his “visit to the archive”. At the time I think most put 2 + 2 together, but now the facts behind this “consultation” role are emerging its leaving a very nasty taste in peoples mouths.

Lets be clear on this. If Andrew Ainsworth is hit by just one tenth of the damages LFL seeks then he will most surely lose everything, a business built over 30 years, his home etc. etc. Now IÂ’m sure there are those who will say that if this happens then its his own fault. Maybe.

However, the fact that Trooper Expert, probably the leading provider of unlicensed replica helmets and Armour, is providing LFL with the ammunition it will use in order to try and bury AA, verges on a sick joke if it were not true.

exoray – are we really so at odds on this subject that you would try to justify TE’s actions?

Cheers

Jez

 

[frosty]

As someone with little knowledge of the trooper helmet and armor, i think that going by past threads on here, if he did show the moulds he has, they would instantly be pulled apart and dismissed out of hand as fake, so it would be pointless, as to a prop maker helping to shut down a fellow producer, well if it is true, then thats disgusting.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

<div class='quotetop'>(frosty @ Sep 26 2006, 09:20 AM) [snapback]1326569[/snapback]</div>

As someone with little knowledge of the trooper helmet and armor, i think that going by past threads on here, if he did show the moulds he has, they would instantly be pulled apart and dismissed out of hand as fake, so it would be pointless, as to a prop maker helping to shut down a fellow producer, well if it is true, then thats disgusting.
[/b]

As far as the molds go, the only way they would be picked apart is if they were false. This just happened when the eBay mold pics were posted. Someone caught a screwhole that was bondoed over and the whole thing was dismissed outright. People will not call something false here unless it is, for the most part. We are all adults here and can readily admit when we are wrong, even IF crow is not a tasty meal.

 

[Gytheran]

The word of the day, kiddies, is: obfuscate.

All of a sudden, now that TE has had some part in this case, it is now apparently TE vs SDS and any damages done will be Matt's fault. :confused

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, Jez. If AA gets run into the ground, it will be his own, idiotic choice that caused it.

You remember that little C&D he receieved and thumbed his nose at?

Had it been me, I would have halted sales immediately following the C&D. THEN, I would look into securing the rights over the material, if I truly felt I had ownership. Somehow this makes more sense than causing the mess he has put himself in.

Condemning TE for assisting LFL(probably a wise move for TE) is rather laughable, considering you advertised for AA, drumming up countless sales for a product which sold under false pretenses and has a HIGHLY questionable lineage. :rolleyes

Black kettle, indeed.

 

[Keith]

I can't see how anyone here could hope that AA would be taken to court by LFL or have to pay a huge fine for selling his products. You can't hope for that to happen while you own replica props yourself, as that would make you a hipocryt.
I have said from the first time i heard that AA is being taken to court by LFL that i hope he gets off with it without having to pay a big fine or anything.

IMO the only thing replica prop collectors should be unhappy with AA about is false advertising.

If AA was taken to court by Trading Standards and the evidence they were using against him was an orignal trooper helmet and one of his replicas, saying how could the molds that made this original be the same molds with only minor clean-up that made this replica? then i could understand why people would hope he gets whats coming to him. He has sold helmets for alomst £500 each to people who were told by himself or his sales people came from the orignal molds, when clearly they are not.

The worst i personally hope would happen to AA is that he would be forced to refund in full anyone who bought one of his replicas who wanted their money back and that he would not be allowed to sell his replicas anymore.
AA's website still tells people that his replica helmets are from the molds that made the orignals, but i believe that there would be no problem proving otherwise if he was taken to court for false advertising and an original helmet and his "original" molds were available as evidence.

Keith.

 

[KarlBud420]

<div class='quotetop'>(Gytheran @ Sep 26 2006, 09:37 AM) [snapback]1326583[/snapback]</div>

The word of the day, kiddies, is: obfuscate.

All of a sudden, now that TE has had some part in this case, it is now apparently TE vs SDS and any damages done will be Matt's fault. :confused

Sorry, it doesn't work that way, Jez. If AA gets run into the ground, it will be his own, idiotic choice that caused it.

You remember that little C&D he receieved and thumbed his nose at?

Had it been me, I would have halted sales immediately following the C&D. THEN, I would look into securing the rights over the material, if I truly felt I had ownership. Somehow this makes more sense than causing the mess he has put himself in.

Condemning TE for assisting LFL(probably a wise move for TE) is rather laughable, considering you advertised for AA, drumming up countless sales for a product which sold under false pretenses and has a HIGHLY questionable lineage. :rolleyes

Black kettle, indeed.
[/b]

With apologies to Motorfish for stealing his schtick:

Bruce

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

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

it is now apparently TE vs SDS and any damages done will be Matt's fault.[/b]

Gytheran - No one is saying that, you're missing the point.

People are expressing concern that Matt Gautier, the self-proclaimed Trooper Expert curried favour with LFL by dishing the dirt on AA in return for his 30 pieces of silver, a few trips round the LFL archives.

A few of us have a problem with that. However its clear you guys from T4BB/Prop Ed/Battlezone donÂ’t see it that way. How you deal with your own version of morality is your prerogative

You guys all stood with Moogy on his “anti SDS ethics stand” - that didn’t go too well did it?

KarlBud420 – if you think Gytheran’s comment was a knock out you’ve clearly new to this hobby :lol
Back at ya

Cheers

Jez

 

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 26 2006, 11:06 AM) [snapback]1326516[/snapback]</div>

Mentioning TE in this thread is fair enough based on the fact he was involved in the court case.
Bashing someone who's not here to defend themselves IS against the rules the forum and shouldn't be happening.
[/b]

If Matt is poacher turner gamekeeper then it has happened and nothing will turn back the hands of time we can't speculate he is the only person who knows the true details. Matt can't post here to defend himself so it is poor form to bash someone who isn't here to defend themselves. This by definition IS against the rules.

AA/SDS aren't here to defend themselves either in this thread or in all the others they have been involved in (many with nothing to do with SDS). I agree with all the people calling for Matt not to be bashed but many of them are throwing stones in glass houses as they have done the exact same to AA numerous times please remember he isn't here to defend himself .

As long as we stick with the facts provided and stay away from rumour and speculation the debate should be fine.

Adding to the debate if AA/SDS do have to have any kind of UK court case then it's clear it won't be any different from the US one.

As I have said before LFL will have their day because of the following reasons.

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

SDS are in the dock for a couple of reasons the first one is LFL have clearly been informed directly of SDS making a run of props outside of any licensing agreement more than likely source of complaint is licensed companies. LFL take in a lot of cash from these licensed companies and they are reassuring these companies who are their customers that their investments are sound.

LFL also know SDS aren't just making props they are claiming they own the rights to them and LFL are making damn sure others know that SDS don't and that they will not tolerate anybody claiming they have the rights to their property.[/b]

Cheers Chris.

 

[KevVader]

<div class='quotetop'>(Keith @ Sep 26 2006, 09:48 AM) [snapback]1326592[/snapback]</div>

I can't see how anyone here could hope that AA would be taken to court by LFL or have to pay a huge fine for selling his products. You can't hope for that to happen while you own replica props yourself, as that would make you a hipocryt.
I have said from the first time i heard that AA is being taken to court by LFL that i hope he gets off with it without having to pay a big fine or anything.

IMO the only thing replica prop collectors should be unhappy with AA about is false advertising.

If AA was taken to court by Trading Standards and the evidence they were using against him was an orignal trooper helmet and one of his replicas, saying how could the molds that made this original be the same molds with only minor clean-up that made this replica? then i could understand why people would hope he gets whats coming to him. He has sold helmets for alomst £500 each to people who were told by himself or his sales people came from the orignal molds, when clearly they are not.

The worst i personally hope would happen to AA is that he would be forced to refund in full anyone who bought one of his replicas who wanted their money back and that he would not be allowed to sell his replicas anymore.
AA's website still tells people that his replica helmets are from the molds that made the orignals, but i believe that there would be no problem proving otherwise if he was taken to court for false advertising and an original helmet and his "original" molds were available as evidence.

Keith.
[/b]

The most level-headed and sensible post of this and any other AA/SDS/LFL/TE trooper helmet thread in recent memory....well said.

 

[atacpdx]

Well, let me say this...

I have confined myself to commenting on the legal apects of the case. I don't have any axe to grind other than the legal interpretations. I don't know or support TE. But unless I missed something, I haven't seen any proof that Matt/TE is one of the "unnamed" mentioned in the LFL complaints and I have not seen him cited as a source or authority. I also have not seen him post that he is a source. So I am compelled to ask Jez or one of the others harping....

Where is the proof or is this just pure conjecture? If conjecture, then I suggest it be dropped as it has zero to do with the case and only fogs the discussion (of course maybe that is the goal). If based on proof, please post links etc. here for analysis.

Thanks