Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
No, your statement was the rub, mine was my opinion. I did not want to start a new paragraph break for two more sentences.
AA case begins
- Thread starter Jumpin Jax
- Start date
I have to totally agree with the above. As far as licensed helmets being produced by other companies such as MR and being claimed as 'accurate' - what a joke. The licensed companies mislead customers about how accurate their products are and make millions off of it. I don't have a problem with these companies in general, but if it isn't a replica then don't claim that it is. AA's helmets are much more accurate than any licensed stuff that I have ever seen.
If LFL and the licensees would produce accurate stuff then there would be no niche in the market to fill by guys like AA in the first place. There would be no AA, recasters, etc., etc. and the fans would be happy with purchasing pieces from licensed sources. In a sense these big companies have created their own problem to begin with. They should stop counting dollars and maybe get more in tune with the fan base, invest in doing some market research and stop treating fans like a cash cow.
I have nothing substantive to add to this discussion, so I shall largely refrain from comment. I think it has been hashed and rehashed, so basically I'd just like to see results.
Even so, I find it remarkable that a Briton with the surname Mann chose to enter into the judiciary, and is now addressed as Mr Justice Mann. :angel
Last edited:
Lets have a little perspective here, no one is getting rich and driving around in Ferrari's selling Trooper armor or any of all the other replica props.
I also doubt anyone on this board is making props for people just out of the goodness of their heart for the cost of materials. Are you going to make someone a Trooper suit with no fee for your time??
Just remember, money makes the world go round. If it didn't people would make stuff for themselves and to hell with anyone else. What would be the point.
So be thankful for that little twinge of greed.
The difference is people here did it and do it for love of the hobby while AA did it for ONLY one thing.
Money
defstartrooper
Sr Member
That's a bit niave if you think every unlicensed propmaker does so because they enjoy it or for love of the hobby.
Yes AA produced his stuff for one reason that being money, but that's what business is about making money, can't fault the guy for that im not a fan of his ethics but looking at it objectively his ethics are no different to any other business.
That's the difference between AA and any hobbyist it's a business it's how he and his employees earn a living it's not a hobby.
Last edited:
They all do it for money.
What sets AA apart is that unlike the other bootleggers, AA claims he is entitled to make them! That is why LFL is pounding him and not the rest. AA is trying to lay claim to LFL's intellectual property! That is greatly different than flying under the radar supplying armor to prop collectors and the 501st.
As for AA's barristers, IF IF IF they are taking the case on spec, they are doing so for a couple of reasons, most of which have little to do with thinking he can win. I guarrantee it. As a law firm owner my partners and I often agree to handle cases that will likely never payoff. This case is being discussed around US and UK firms everywhere and a lot of firms are saying they would have gladly handled it on spec.
The 1st reason for doing it on spec is publicity. This is a hugely high profile case in entertainment and IP circles. Every article is a free ad for them. Win or lose they get tons of new clients from this.
The 2nd is speaking engagement revenues. The 2 lead barristers from AA's legal firm are already accepting bookings for the speaking circuit engagements. Thanks to this case, they suddenly have "street cred" for giving IP Law lectures. They are minor celebs in legal circles.
3rd, this case has actually required little time or expense for the firm. They are presenting a canned defense. It is not like they spent a year of firm time and resources on investigators, research etc. Hell just a few months ago, AA was giving interviews and begging a barrister to come to his defense against the evil empire.
Lastly, sure there is always a chance for a fluke win and a big payday. For that firm, this case is like a lottery ticket. Spend a few bucks on a chance for a big payday. Unlike you or I buying a ticket, they are getting all those other benefits whether their number is drawn or not.
By the way, around most of the law firms I talk to that handle Int'l IP issues...LFL is about a 10 to 1 favorite. So place your bets, pop the corn, crack a beverage and have fun.
What sets AA apart is that unlike the other bootleggers, AA claims he is entitled to make them! That is why LFL is pounding him and not the rest. AA is trying to lay claim to LFL's intellectual property! That is greatly different than flying under the radar supplying armor to prop collectors and the 501st.
As for AA's barristers, IF IF IF they are taking the case on spec, they are doing so for a couple of reasons, most of which have little to do with thinking he can win. I guarrantee it. As a law firm owner my partners and I often agree to handle cases that will likely never payoff. This case is being discussed around US and UK firms everywhere and a lot of firms are saying they would have gladly handled it on spec.
The 1st reason for doing it on spec is publicity. This is a hugely high profile case in entertainment and IP circles. Every article is a free ad for them. Win or lose they get tons of new clients from this.
The 2nd is speaking engagement revenues. The 2 lead barristers from AA's legal firm are already accepting bookings for the speaking circuit engagements. Thanks to this case, they suddenly have "street cred" for giving IP Law lectures. They are minor celebs in legal circles.
3rd, this case has actually required little time or expense for the firm. They are presenting a canned defense. It is not like they spent a year of firm time and resources on investigators, research etc. Hell just a few months ago, AA was giving interviews and begging a barrister to come to his defense against the evil empire.
Lastly, sure there is always a chance for a fluke win and a big payday. For that firm, this case is like a lottery ticket. Spend a few bucks on a chance for a big payday. Unlike you or I buying a ticket, they are getting all those other benefits whether their number is drawn or not.
By the way, around most of the law firms I talk to that handle Int'l IP issues...LFL is about a 10 to 1 favorite. So place your bets, pop the corn, crack a beverage and have fun.
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
MattMunson
Master Member
I don't know much about the case, or the players, but I do have a lot of personal knowledge of how the British legal system does their business. Long story short, the courts are VERY sympathetic to the worker, and extremely hostile to the business owners. Almost to comic or marxian proportions.
In my mind, it's even money. Even if LFL has an air tight, slam dunk case against AA, it would not surprise me if they judged in AA's favor. It's almost as if the court system snubs it's collective nose at the creators of wealth, as they would prefer to see it distributed among the working class. this may actually be part of AA's strategy. He may well recognize that this is the lean of the courts in Britain.
It's one of the reasons I chose not to go into business in the UK. If you do, you're essentially opening the doors and inviting people to come in and sue you. What we see in america is such a tiny fraction of how it plays out in the UK.
Granted, this may be limited to my experiences, but that seems unlikely. In the name of full disclosure, I should say I am half british, so please don't take my comments as simply xenophobic
carry on.
In my mind, it's even money. Even if LFL has an air tight, slam dunk case against AA, it would not surprise me if they judged in AA's favor. It's almost as if the court system snubs it's collective nose at the creators of wealth, as they would prefer to see it distributed among the working class. this may actually be part of AA's strategy. He may well recognize that this is the lean of the courts in Britain.
It's one of the reasons I chose not to go into business in the UK. If you do, you're essentially opening the doors and inviting people to come in and sue you. What we see in america is such a tiny fraction of how it plays out in the UK.
Granted, this may be limited to my experiences, but that seems unlikely. In the name of full disclosure, I should say I am half british, so please don't take my comments as simply xenophobic
carry on.
I don't know much about the case, or the players, but I do have a lot of personal knowledge of how the British legal system does their business. Long story short, the courts are VERY sympathetic to the worker, and extremely hostile to the business owners. Almost to comic or marxian proportions.
In my mind, it's even money. Even if LFL has an air tight, slam dunk case against AA, it would not surprise me if they judged in AA's favor. It's almost as if the court system snubs it's collective nose at the creators of wealth, as they would prefer to see it distributed among the working class. this may actually be part of AA's strategy. He may well recognize that this is the lean of the courts in Britain.
It's one of the reasons I chose not to go into business in the UK. If you do, you're essentially opening the doors and inviting people to come in and sue you. What we see in america is such a tiny fraction of how it plays out in the UK.
Granted, this may be limited to my experiences, but that seems unlikely. In the name of full disclosure, I should say I am half british, so please don't take my comments as simply xenophobic
carry on.
Normally Matt I'd say you are right. However the UK courts are less "worker friendly" when it comes to Int'l companies. There is a tremendous pressure on the UK courts and government to protect "foreign" (read U.S.)companies from IP theft.
I don't know if Matt is referring to this, but the UK certainly has quite strigent laws regarding workers rights, especially in regard to dismissal & redundancies or sexual/racial harassment cases.. Not sure about this kind of case though.
Employees who get caught for crimes like fraud or embezzlement tend to get thrown to the lions worse than rapists or murderers. Try & stick it to the system, be prepared to do big time.
Employees who get caught for crimes like fraud or embezzlement tend to get thrown to the lions worse than rapists or murderers. Try & stick it to the system, be prepared to do big time.
Last edited:
No I am not nieve, sorry if you didn't get the jist of what I said, maybe you should read it a few more times so you can understand.
Heres a few lines you may have glossed over, "doubt anyone on this board is making props for people just out of the goodness of their heart for the cost of materials." "money makes the world go round"
The only thing nieve is believing all the unlicensed prop makers are getting RICH :lol
defstartrooper
Sr Member
I was referring to the other makers do it for the love of the hobby line.
As for others don't get rich just how much do you suppose a sheet of styrene costs in relation to the helmet or armour they sell ?
You think AA is fighting a court case which might cost him £10 million if there's no financial gain to be had from producing helmets and armour ?
Of course not and it's no different to anyone else either.
Yeah ok his prices might be higher than some but factor in that this is a legit registered company paying taxes and employee wages etc, I doubt his profit margin is that different to any other.
Mr. No Stripes
Sr Member
So... I'm guessing AA lost the fight... now he's trying to sue back?
tgreco
Sr Member
Preface: I know just the barest details of this case but I just have to ask one question:
if you were a UK resident,
who owned a UK firm,
and did work in the UK for someone,
that you produced and then delivered to said customer in the UK
WHY ON EARTH would you let a US court decide anything for you?
Just because George is from the US doesn't mean US law applies
I'm sure that you realize that intellectual property rights, copyrights, and work for hire agreements are most likely different in the UK, where the work was done. So why would you defend anything in a court that is obviously not the appropriate jurisdiction? The US judgement means nothing...
sorry just saw this gaping logic hole in that argument and had to point it out...
it's not like I give a **** either way
defstartrooper
Sr Member
No not lost anything yet, unless you count the US hearing last year which he ignored and didn't attend so it was awarded to LFL by default.
But yes he is counter claiming against LFL aswell for money earned from what he says is his design.
lonepigeon
Master Member
Lucasfilm is defending their intellectual property rights and they started by defending them in their home country.
It shut down all US sales by AA rather effectively.
Onigiri
Sr Member
OK, Im invoking my hereditary "Im always right card".
*slaps card down on table*
Ainsworth is wrong, Lucas is right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong.
Is this because I am smarter or better informed?
No.
It is because I used my "Im always right card" before anyone else thought to and I am now following it up with...
*slap*
...my "Barrier to any interference from any other clever cards or come backs card".
This is insurmountable and no longer open fro discussion in anything other then the hypothetical. To solidify this...
*slap*
...I now lay down my "Burial of the deceased equine" card. Once buried the equine can no longer be beaten.
I hated to do this but you people left me no choice
*slaps card down on table*
Ainsworth is wrong, Lucas is right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong.
Is this because I am smarter or better informed?
No.
It is because I used my "Im always right card" before anyone else thought to and I am now following it up with...
*slap*
...my "Barrier to any interference from any other clever cards or come backs card".
This is insurmountable and no longer open fro discussion in anything other then the hypothetical. To solidify this...
*slap*
...I now lay down my "Burial of the deceased equine" card. Once buried the equine can no longer be beaten.
I hated to do this but you people left me no choice
Excellent point...it's the hypocricy and sour grapes among fan-made helmet makers that made me defend AA initially...the case has gone this far and many here thought AA was dead in the water upon the CA court verdict without knowing anything about the UK legal system or due process. I'd like to see someone here with a legal background define with more clarity the idea of industrial design and to what extent artistic contribution is related to that. Design is art, is it not? He's lasted this long so there must be something to his defense. We are still left with the question of whether or not he has or made/sculpted/designed the original molds. Design is related to fabrication as in fabrication of the molds. The molds had to be designed to withstand the rigors of the large vacuum pulling equipment AA was using. He had to use his background in vacuforming to impliment an approach or method along with fabrication of the molds to make the different parts of the costume and helmet "work" on the wearer. That design process is at the core of his defense.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Bah at you and your cards
defstartrooper
Sr Member
One thing i've noticed is there's no mention in these reports of LFL claiming any sculpting or designing aside from the McQuarrie sketches/paintings, no mention of anyone actually sculpting something so what's the story with the photo's they supposedly have of someone else sculpting the helmet ?
