Karaoke Forums

Let's not forget your lies.....

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31941&p=402782&hilit=peters+watermark#p402782

_________________
-Chris

Another unrelated drive by....

Absolutely related.

You called Harrington a liar in an attempt to paint him as untrustworthy (this thread)

I caught you in a lie and proved you are untrustworthy (the thread I referenced).

I am just calling out the hypocrisy of your argument.

Of course I don't suspect very many people care that you lied because the anti-SC theme is easy to latch onto. It's easy to hate on Sound Choice because of how they have managed things. It's also easy to bury your lie in all the anti-SC rhetoric.

But that doesn't change the fact that you lied.

If you can soapbox against SC/PEP, I can soapbox against you.

_________________
-Chris

Because Harrington needs all the help he can get -- even if it's from a controlled licensee.

Not too add any(more) salt to an open wound, but how does it feel to know that you have all these contracts from PEP that gave you a "covenant not to sue" you for trademark infringement... and the federal courts have declared that it's not in fact, trademark infringement at all?

So you have a worthless covenant not to sue you for something they can't sue you for anyway... but you're still stuck with all the other never-ending obligations of the contracts you paid them to sign.....

Brilliant!

Don't want to talk about your lie?

[url]viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31941&p=402782&hilit=peters+watermark#p402782[/url]

_________________
-Chris

crickets.....

_________________
-Chris

This is a good example of why it's a poor choice to follow the legal advice of someone who's not a lawyer.

Here's what's true: Two federal appellate courts have determined on specific facts that the mere isolated display of the Sound Choice trademark incidental to the playing of a karaoke track, without the sale of tracks, is not actionable as trademark infringement. Numerous other federal courts have concluded the exact opposite, that it is in fact actionable as trademark infringement.

More importantly, we have substantially modified our approach to these cases by writing claims that address what the Seventh Circuit found to be deficient in the complaints.

One of the reasons why lawyers spend three years doing intensive graduate-level study, then take an incredibly difficult series of exams, then spend years practicing (usually under the guidance of a more experienced attorney) before they offer legal opinions is because it is extremely easy to take a complicated issue, pick out the conclusion you want, then wildly overstate that conclusion in a way that's unsupported. The practice of law requires both attention to detail and the ability to conduct dispassionate analysis--neither of which Mr. Staley demonstrates in his statement above.

I'll note that when Mr. Staley asked for opinions and orders from the six other circuits where courts have ruled in our favor, I provided exactly what he asked for. He looked at the very first one, decided that it didn't meet his requirements, then he assumed that the rest were the same. That's not a very lawyerly approach. It might be attractive to people who are predisposed against Phoenix, but courts tend to expect a more comprehensive approach to argument.

No matter how much he would like to conclude otherwise, the law is unsettled on this point, even in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits (which are the two appellate courts that have ruled on this subject). Opinions issued after the Seventh Circuit ruling in cases where our claims are very different from the ones in that case have gone differently--even one in the Central District of Illinois, which is in the Seventh Circuit. That was a case, by the way, where the defendant decided to follow Mr. Staley's advice (instead of his attorney's)--and he lost his motion to dismiss as well as the opportunity to settle with us on very reasonable terms.

As long as one of those two courts covers California Jim that is all that matters to me.

And that is a perfect example of how your are not honest with the reader's of this forum. You knew EXACTLY what the requirements were (no defaults and no settlements) and you simply ignored them, latched on to the single word "order" then provided only what you wanted and to whine about being called on it. You even admitted that 4 of the 6 examples you chose (out of hundreds of lawsuits) were in fact, settlements. Paradigm called you on it and you whined even louder.

And here's yet an example of smoke and mirrors:
It could have been a parking ticket because that is also a "different claim" that would have "gone differently." The subject is the legality of trademark infringement and his so-called "media shifting" but he chooses to equate something else to it... and he doesn't even come clean enough to tell you whatever that is because a "different claim" would "have gone differently." He's just throwing vague crap at a wall and hoping something will sound logical enough to stick.

But this one takes the cake because remember all his high-horse flag-waving "do the right thing" garbage? Looks to me that rather than PEP "doing the right thing" he decided the best thing to do was to be as vindictive as he could possibly be and NOT settle on "reasonable terms." This means that by his own admission, he would not be willing to do even the "reasonable thing."

But it's easy to make up pretty sounding stories to vilify me like that... if you never have to prove they were real to begin with... It's kind of like a fart: it certainly smells bad, but no one can see it and in reality, there's nothing substantial to back it up.

Wait until he tells you about "this one time..... at band camp....."

<the crickets got bored a left>

<cicadas>

Where have we seen this before.......lie about something, get called out on it, ignore that, continue to lie, and then call someone else a liar to distract from your own lie.

Here....you are a shoe in!

http://trumpemployment.com

_________________
-Chris

I'm not sure who "he" is in this paragraph, but if you're referring to me, I'm not the attorney on that case.

The case in question is Jorgenson. (I know you're acquainted with that case, because you've discussed it on this board.) Mr. Jorgenson claimed he had 1:1 correspondence, and he was offered a free audit and--if he passed--an outright dismissal. He declined, following Mr. Staley's advice.

We then offered to settle with Mr. Jorgenson on reasonable terms based on his apparent lack of 1:1 correspondence. He decided instead to file a motion to dismiss the claims. That required us to expend a great deal of time writing a response. As a result, whereas we would have been happy to settle on the terms we offered before, our amount of effort increased as a result of Mr. Jorgenson's decision to follow Mr. Staley's advice and fight, so we were no longer willing to settle on those same terms.

Mr. Jorgenson lost that motion, so we will proceed with the case on the merits.

We are still willing to settle with Mr. Jorgenson on reasonable terms. We're not "being as vindictive as possible." We've simply modified our settlement offer to reflect the additional unnecessary work that Mr. Jorgenson put us through as a result of his following Mr. Staley's (now obviously bad) advice.



I haven't had to make up anything. The order denying Mr. Jorgenson's motion to dismiss is a matter of public record. We make a reasonable settlement offer in all cases. We specifically offer all operator defendants the opportunity to demonstrate 1:1 correspondence and get a prompt dismissal.

As difficult as it is for you, try being less cryptic and tell the nice readers here what the real case is... as in the "official name." That way, they can reference it and make their own decision without your prejudiced leadership.

It's easy to spout a name ("it was the Smith case") and not provide the actual caption for reference...no case number, no party name, because the only person to use the name "Jorgenson" on this forum (until this very post) was you. Do the search...

And you're (as predictable as can be) not stating what you believe the "advice" was, when it was or anything else. You also believe that I instigated the EMI suit too... but never substantiated that either.. (don't you have another payment coming up?)

Just more baseless finger-pointing from you. Anytime you want to man up and provide some real information rather than just pointing off into your smoke screen and flailing even more baseless accusations about, let me know.

come on Chip, it's too easy to find to go through this crap, drop the "i don't wanna and you can't make me" routine.

"Here, however, Jorgensen is alleged to compete in the provision of karaoke services to bars and other establishments and is also alleged to have violated trademarks covering both goods and services. Phoenix points out that Jorgensen is not a bar owner providing free karaoke services for patrons like the defendant in Rumsey; rather, he is alleged to be a mobile entertainer who sells/rents karaoke equipment and accompaniment tracks to establishments wanting to offer karaoke to their patrons and is in effect competing with Phoenix in the provision of these services."

as i called in an earler post on a different thread, they are suing him for providing karaoke services, because it competes with SCE, and displaying the SC mark on screen violates their service mark.
but it's not over either way

"This seems to be precisely the type of situation that the Seventh Circuit distinguished from the holding in Rumsey, and Phoenix's claims regarding its service mark registrations survive the Motion to Dismiss. Whether the product mark claims are viable is a much closer question, but given the relatively undeveloped factual record, the Court finds that this issue should be decided after discovery reveals the precise nature of Jorgensen's activities."

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Okay, I see the problem: I searched based on Harrington's misspelling of "JorgensOn" and not on "JorgensEn." My apologies Paradigm.

So here is the problem I have with this: Which one is it? Is he a "mobile entertainer" or does he "sell/rent karaoke equipment and accompaniment tracks?" These are 2 separate and completely different endeavors. Even this case doesn't know, it's still open after a year and a half and it's scheduled to continue on with discovery into NEXT year.

If it turns out that he's "selling tracks" then he is in the wrong. If he is a KJ that plays tracks off a laptop only, then lots of KJ's fit that description... but like it says; "this issue should be decided after discovery reveals the precise nature of Jorgensen's activities." And that will be sometime next year.

If he is a KJ that's just standing his ground against a contract and an audit, then Harrington's strategy (like the others) will just be the next one to topple because Jorgensen isn't "confusing" anyone about who is providing the service(s). "Most Wanted DJ's" provides the service... on a mobile basis.

You "compete with SCE," I do too, Lonnie does too.... So there is a fundamental problem with Harrington's strategy here: SC sold the discs to be used in a commercial environment which displays the trade/service mark by it's very nature, and (as I said before) it's going to be a hard sell to convince a court that after years of these sales, suddenly KJ's can't play their tracks because the mark is exclusive to their fledgling karaoke business. And that somehow you, or Lonnie or I are "confusing the public" as to who is providing these karaoke "services?"

Of course the other method of thinking of this is that Harrington is now claiming that since you signed a contract, and Lonnie signed a contract that you now "work for him" and that "your karaoke services" are no longer yours, but his and that you are providing "Sound Choice Karaoke Entertainment Services" with the mark as a representative of Phoenix Entertainment Partners.

But, since the case was filed in 2015 and it's scheduled to go into 2018, it's not looking like PEP-tone has anything close to an open and shut case does it?

The case hasn't settled and I'm still waiting for Harrington to explain what the "advice" I provided to Jorgensen was.