Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums :: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed

c.staley wrote:

I thought they were out to fight piracy.... so why have they let the casinos (and soon all the defendants) walkaway?
SC has (once again) failed to meet a response deadline set by the court. This time in Nevada and the casinos have filed for a dismissal.... which SC has failed even to respond to.

Unless SC can pull off some real magic with the court, their Nevada suit may go away entirely. As in "caput."

Quote:

Full docket text for document 51:
ORDER ON STIPULATION Granting [49] Stipulation For an Extension of Time to File Opposition to [35] MOTION to Dismiss and [36] MOTION to Sever. Responses due by 4/26/2012. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 4/19/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

*sigh*

SC has filed its substantive response to the motions. (See Doc. 43, filed on 4/10.) The other motions are virtually identical to the ones that SC has already responded to. SC has asked for--and received--additional time because it is engaged in settlement negotiations with several defendants. The additional time isn't needed to formulate a response--that response will be the same as the other one, and may simply incorporate it by reference--but to allow settlement negotiations to proceed. The motions will be decided on the merits once it is clear which parties are settling and which are not. The court is happy to give extra time for settlement negotiations because settlements reduce the workload on the court.

I realize that you think every perceived failing by SC is cause to rejoice, but maybe you should leave the litigation analysis to people who actually know what's going on.

c.staley wrote:

I'm simply questioning why SC is missing deadlines that they are fully aware of?

I know you'd like to deflect SC's failure to follow the court's deadline as though it's something I've either made up, or am dancing over. Nice try.

If your client is so interested in stopping piracy, why do they appear to be missing the simplest calendar events? I see no extension of time ordered by the court so perhaps you can show us where the court has agreed with your extension?

I don't think you are the one making it up. I think you're reading a blogger who's dead-on certain he knows what's going on despite not being involved in the slightest.

The attorneys handling that case have it well in hand. They have made a response that the court will consider. There are not any missed calendar events of consequence, and sadly--for you--the motions are not going to be granted by default.

“failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.”

The attorneys handling that case have it well in hand. They have made a response that the court will consider. There are not any missed calendar events of consequence, and sadly--for you--the motions are not going to be granted by default.

Harringtonlaw wrote:

The attorneys handling that case have it well in hand.

Yup. Well in hand. I can see that.

I am reserving my comments until I have a chance to speak directly to Kurt.

-Chris

so Harrington says it was filed, but the Nevada Court says it wasnt,
both can not be correct, can they?
but if you look at it, that is not all of the defendants in this case, also, the response had to be in by 4/9, Harrington said it was filed on 4/10, a day too late, meaning missed calendar event of consequence.
what about the other defendants?

Paradigm Karaoke wrote:

just bumping the question.

Paradigm Karaoke wrote:

just bumping the question.

Anymore info on suits in Vegas or the lack there of?

I found this article as well as the readers comments as an interesting read.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120217/00155517788/97-las-vegas-karaoke-locations-sued-righthaven-trademarks-demanding-500-million.shtml

I waded through the 12 pages only to find this is dated October 2011.. :roll:

Slep-Tone has failed to direct the court's attention to any evidence in the record tending to show either unauthorized use of the SOUNDCHOICE marks, or that any of the alleged infringing material originated with the defendants.

Paradigm Karaoke wrote:

just bumping the question.

Author:	earthling12357 [ Mon May 07, 2012 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right again
May 4, 2012 the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA dismissed Slep-Tone's complaint against the "Big Boys" of Las Vegas. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 1336223283 Remember this? HarringtonLaw wrote: c.staley wrote: I thought they were out to fight piracy.... so why have they let the casinos (and soon all the defendants) walkaway? SC has (once again) failed to meet a response deadline set by the court. This time in Nevada and the casinos have filed for a dismissal.... which SC has failed even to respond to. Unless SC can pull off some real magic with the court, their Nevada suit may go away entirely. As in "caput." Quote: Full docket text for document 51: ORDER ON STIPULATION Granting [49] Stipulation For an Extension of Time to File Opposition to [35] MOTION to Dismiss and [36] MOTION to Sever. Responses due by 4/26/2012. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 4/19/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR) sigh SC has filed its substantive response to the motions. (See Doc. 43, filed on 4/10.) The other motions are virtually identical to the ones that SC has already responded to. SC has asked for--and received--additional time because it is engaged in settlement negotiations with several defendants. The additional time isn't needed to formulate a response--that response will be the same as the other one, and may simply incorporate it by reference--but to allow settlement negotiations to proceed. The motions will be decided on the merits once it is clear which parties are settling and which are not. The court is happy to give extra time for settlement negotiations because settlements reduce the workload on the court. I realize that you think every perceived failing by SC is cause to rejoice, but maybe you should leave the litigation analysis to people who actually know what's going on. or this? HarringtonLaw wrote: c.staley wrote: I'm simply questioning why SC is missing deadlines that they are fully aware of? I know you'd like to deflect SC's failure to follow the court's deadline as though it's something I've either made up, or am dancing over. Nice try. If your client is so interested in stopping piracy, why do they appear to be missing the simplest calendar events? I see no extension of time ordered by the court so perhaps you can show us where the court has agreed with your extension? I don't think you are the one making it up. I think you're reading a blogger who's dead-on certain he knows what's going on despite not being involved in the slightest. The attorneys handling that case have it well in hand. They have made a response that the court will consider. There are not any missed calendar events of consequence, and sadly--for you--the motions are not going to be granted by default. It looks like maybe Chip did know what was going on... Motion to Dismiss wrote: “failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” Now, if Soundchoice jumps right back in and refiles against those "Big Boys" we'll know they weren't just running from the fight by letting it be dismissed.

Author:	Smoothedge69 [ Mon May 07, 2012 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
Sound Choice should know better than to fight against big corporations. Caesar's will out gun them every time.

Author:	birdofsong [ Mon May 07, 2012 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
Harringtonlaw wrote: The attorneys handling that case have it well in hand. They have made a response that the court will consider. There are not any missed calendar events of consequence, and sadly--for you--the motions are not going to be granted by default. Yup. Well in hand. I can see that.

Author:	Paradigm Karaoke [ Mon May 07, 2012 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
so Harrington says it was filed, but the Nevada Court says it wasnt, both can not be correct, can they? but if you look at it, that is not all of the defendants in this case, also, the response had to be in by 4/9, Harrington said it was filed on 4/10, a day too late, meaning missed calendar event of consequence. what about the other defendants?

Author:	JoeChartreuse [ Tue May 08, 2012 12:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
birdofsong wrote: Harringtonlaw wrote: The attorneys handling that case have it well in hand. Yup. Well in hand. I can see that. Sounds about right.....

Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/

Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right again https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=23818	Page 1 of 2

Author:	gd123 [ Tue May 08, 2012 6:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
...yeah...where's all the "precedent setting" cries from the "cheerleaders?"

Author:	chrisavis [ Tue May 08, 2012 7:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
I am reserving my comments until I have a chance to speak directly to Kurt. -Chris

Author:	JoeChartreuse [ Fri May 11, 2012 11:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
chrisavis wrote: I am reserving my comments until I have a chance to speak directly to Kurt. -Chris Have fun with that. Winning or losing a court case would have been the very LEAST of his concerns in regard to trying to strong-arm the Las Vegas folks....

Author:	earthling12357 [ Sat May 12, 2012 12:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
chrisavis wrote: I am reserving my comments until I have a chance to speak directly to Kurt. -Chris Please ask Kurt if Ceasar's and Harrahs will now be allowed to display their "media-shifted" Soundchoice trademarks without permission or audit.

Author:	BruceFan4Life [ Sun May 13, 2012 8:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
You know what I find funny ? Typically in law enforcement, when they arrest a little fish; they try to get information from the little fish so they can catch the really big fish. In this situation, the big fish(The people selling the loaded hard drives) are pretty much left to their own devices because they are the ones who supply Sound Choice with defendants. So what is happening is Sound Choice goes after the sellers of hard drives just to get their customer list so they can go after the small fish because it's all about quantity and not quality. If they shut down the hard drive sellers, it cuts down on thier profit margin. The more pirates the better for the bottom line of Sound Choice. They make a hefty profit certifying pirates as legal. Buy the GEM series, OR ELSE! I can't understand why those strong arm tactics didn't work in Vegas. Maybe someone made Sound Choice an offer they couldn't refuse?

Author:	Paradigm Karaoke [ Sun May 13, 2012 10:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
Paradigm Karaoke wrote: so Harrington says it was filed, but the Nevada Court says it wasnt, both can not be correct, can they? but if you look at it, that is not all of the defendants in this case, also, the response had to be in by 4/9, Harrington said it was filed on 4/10, a day too late, meaning missed calendar event of consequence. what about the other defendants? just bumping the question.

Author:	hiteck [ Tue May 29, 2012 5:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
Paradigm Karaoke wrote: Paradigm Karaoke wrote: so Harrington says it was filed, but the Nevada Court says it wasnt, both can not be correct, can they? but if you look at it, that is not all of the defendants in this case, also, the response had to be in by 4/9, Harrington said it was filed on 4/10, a day too late, meaning missed calendar event of consequence. what about the other defendants? just bumping the question. Anymore info on suits in Vegas or the lack there of? I found this article as well as the readers comments as an interesting read. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120217/00155517788/97-las-vegas-karaoke-locations-sued-righthaven-trademarks-demanding-500-million.shtml

Author:	Lone Wolf [ Tue May 29, 2012 6:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
hiteck wrote: Paradigm Karaoke wrote: Paradigm Karaoke wrote: so Harrington says it was filed, but the Nevada Court says it wasnt, both can not be correct, can they? but if you look at it, that is not all of the defendants in this case, also, the response had to be in by 4/9, Harrington said it was filed on 4/10, a day too late, meaning missed calendar event of consequence. what about the other defendants? just bumping the question. Anymore info on suits in Vegas or the lack there of? I found this article as well as the readers comments as an interesting read. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120217/00155517788/97-las-vegas-karaoke-locations-sued-righthaven-trademarks-demanding-500-million.shtml After reading the article what I found most interesting in it is: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 1319724001 If I'm reading it correctly (to much legal speak) SC lost against Karaoke Kandy Store when the BIG GUNS of State Farm stepped in to help K.K.S.!!!

Author:	jdmeister [ Tue May 29, 2012 11:05 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
I waded through the 12 pages only to find this is dated October 2011..

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	hiteck [ Tue May 29, 2012 11:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
jdmeister wrote: I waded through the 12 pages only to find this is dated October 2011.. Sorry jdmeister, I should have included that info with my link

Author:	jdmeister [ Tue May 29, 2012 12:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
No worries.. it seems like I saw "Dismissed" and "Denied" quite often..

Author:	Paradigm Karaoke [ Tue May 29, 2012 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
seems everything SC asked for got denied. interresting parts ( though admittedly not sure how to really read it) the one making the motion has to prove it not the defendant, the investigator have to show not just that the mark was there, but proof that it is unauthorized, the unclean hands may apply (other reasons stated for it being denied), and buying a loaded drive from someone does not count as proof of anything valuable.

Author:	earthling12357 [ Tue May 29, 2012 10:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
That was a case first discussed in one of C.Staley's threads here: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=22578 Somebody pointed this out in that same thread: court order wrote: Slep-Tone has failed to direct the court's attention to any evidence in the record tending to show either unauthorized use of the SOUNDCHOICE marks, or that any of the alleged infringing material originated with the defendants. The ruling on the appeal should be interesting indeed.

Author:	JoeChartreuse [ Tue May 29, 2012 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soundchoice Vegas Bomb Dismissed - Chip proven right aga
Just to make life easier: http://www.soundchoicelasvegaslawsuit.com