Karaoke Forums

Hmmm. I saw on another forum that SC lost its case badly before an Ohio jury a couple of weeks ago and that the judge awarded fees against SC too? Is this true Harrington?

He says the case is pending. He won't talk about it. I always thought pending meant still to come, not already decided by a jury. .

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I'm not sure how you can say "lost its case badly." There was a bench verdict for the defendant (it was a bench trial, but the judge empaneled an advisory jury). The advisory jury that was simply asked to determine whether SC proved its case or not, and the response was "no." To say it was lost "badly" is wishful thinking, but that probably says more about the forum you were reading than anything.

As is the standard practice in all litigation, the judgment included an order for taxable costs. As an attorney, you should know the difference between "costs" and "fees." There has been no fee award.

The Case itself is CLOSED. The only thing pending is the PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY
OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW filed by Harrington a few days ago. Not sure if this really qualifies as "pending". I am not sure but I would think the answer to this may or may not be what everyone is waiting for ... Maybe Mr. Harrington can explain.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:10-cv-00990
Judge Donald C. Nugent

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY
OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Plaintiff, Slep-Tone Entertainment
Corporation, hereby requests that the
Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1), enter findings of
fact and separate conclusions of law in this matter.
Rule 52(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
In an action tried on the facts without
a jury or with an advisory jury,
the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of
law separately. The findings and
conclusions may be stated on the
record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion
or a memorandum of decision filed by the court.
The present action was tried with an advisory jury, and although judgment has been
entered, the Court has not entered findings of fact and separate conclusions of law as
required by Rule 52(a)(1). The Plaintiff
therefore respectfully
requests entry thereof.
Case: 1:10-cv-00990-DCN Doc #: 111 Filed: 09/05/13 1 of 2. PageID #: 2277

Sometimes a jury will decide a case on emotion more than the facts. Anyone remember a guy by the name of O.J. Simpson? His Jury found him not guilty. The fact that this case was decided by a judge and not "common folk" who might not really know much about the laws pertaining to a particular case, speaks volumes. This is now a SECOND Judge who isn't willing to drink the Sound Choice Kool Aid. A SECOND Judge who has said to Sound Choice: OH NO YOU DON'T...NOT IN MY COURT ROOM. Your thuggery will not work here. You can't tell people what to do with your product once they have possession of it; whether they bought it or "found" it. Time to take your balls and go home.

If only they WOULD just go home, realize they are finished, and close up shop, OR STFU, work out some new license agreements, and get back to making music.

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

OK, so if the jury found against SC would you call that a victory in any way? Do you really think the judge will decide differently? And when the judge agrees with the jury (which you seem to concede already has occurred above) that SC failed to prove its case against Karaoke Kandy Store will you then admit that both jury and federal judge (two finders of fact) found SC failed to prove its case? Will you not agree that that would be a case lost badly? It appears that the ruling overturning summary judgment in this case was a Pyrrhic one. SC is sure racking up sizable recoveries for its contingency lawyers. How many lawyer hours were put into this case including appeal that resulted in this goose egg?
Then again there is the exposure by SC to pay KKS attorneys' fees based on the statute that SC sued upon - oh you know the award made available for fees under the Lanham Act? See http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/01/17/1 ... ey-s-fees/
And when that motion is filed and the order is granted, how will you be spinning what is not only a bad loss, i.e. a very public zero recovery for SC, and an award of both costs, as you say, and attorneys' fees against SC on top of that? [Seems the judge is used to hitting SC for fees. According to the docket: "Order re 33 , 83 . For all of the reasons stated, and upon consideration for good cause shown, Plaintiff is ordered to pay to Defendants, in care of their attorneys, $4,756.50 representing the reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in making Defendants' Motion to Compel. Judge Donald C. Nugent (C,KA) (Entered: 03/07/2012)."]

Old Jimbo is the master of the spin. If he was the captain of the Titanic he would tell the passengers that there is nothing to worry about they just bumped a whale.

Maybe he'll blame Donna Boris and APS for the KKS loss too - even though it was in neither California or Nevada, but rather in Ohio. Hey Harrington, who was the lawyer representing SC at the KKS trial? Who was the investigator?

that's the big problem, it wasn't him. it was someone else who is completely incompetent and the jury who did not understand the judges instructions and the judge who did not understand the law, and the teachers at the judges law school who did not understand the law well enough to teach the judge the right way........
this was not a win for SC so it was everyone involved who did not understand the law and was incompetent....
same drill as before.

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

Next verse, same as the first!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

Jimbo said that SC put on the best case they possibly could against the Kandy Store and they still lost. It wasn't even a split decision it was a knockout to put it in boxing terms. It is time for Jimbo to do a little soul searching. If you really do put on the best case you can and you are not a hack lawyer, where does that leave you? The underlying law you are basing your case on can't support the weight of the charges. It is the message not the messenger Jimbo. Chris has always wondered why other manus have not gone the legal process route? I feel it is because their lawyer's told them the law wasn't there to support the charges, and it would cost more than it was worth. That seems to be the way it is playing out for SC. The manus can't sue for tract content that belongs to the publishers. That only leaves them the trademark infringement fig leaf to hide the nakedness of their racketeering scam. They really can't hide behind that anymore, at least as far as hosts and venues are concerned unless they can prove both parts of the requirements for such a charge. The average host or venue is not copying SC material and then trying to sell it as original SC material. They are not trying to create confusion in the market place which would have to be proved in court before trademark infringement would attach. Hell according to Thunder on the Free Forum the Kandy Store was the largest wholesale pirate operation in the country and SC still couldn't make the charges stick.

Despite all of this I'm not confident that this will end the legal process for SC. They will continue to sue small rig operators and the venues that hire them even though legally they know the charges aren't supported by the law. When I talked with CAVS they told me the legal process manus are banking on the fact that the average host or venue does not have the resources to take them on in court. That even if the charges are without merit they will pay up to avoid the cost and time it would take to prove they are not guilty. In my opinion SC is using the legal system to drive the sales of their product, knowing the average person can't resist them. I find their method of doing business more disgusting than the pirate playing for tips and drinks. SC is hurting a whole industry just to try and line their own pockets greed to the tenth power. These are the type of people other hosts have been supporting hoping they would help the industry. They are doing as much damage as the other side what is worse they should know better. It is a cinch the little guys can't take them down, unless we all boycott their product. That only leaves other companies like CAVS and EMI that can finally put SC away. Which in my opinion would be better for the industry in the long run. After all SC has made the publishers so mad they can't get licensing anymore it is not like they are ever going to return to being a production company. Until stopped they are going to keep running this legal racketeering scam of theirs.

Nice to see yet another thread started on this so we can re-hash the same stuff in two different places. I wasn't getting enough of this BS with just one thread.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Sort of like the BS we get from the other side that swamps all of these forums. At least it is counter BS to the other BS, if it's all BS then maybe it's time to stop all the BS, right Chris?

With any luck, your BS will stop when you retire. My fear is that you will have nothing else to do and you will have even more time to clog these forums with your diatribe.

@Phill - You may consider buying more storage. Put it on a LUN named THELONELUN.

======================================================

Lone Ranger - I am going to hold your feet to the fire on this.

Show me where *in the last 6 months* the pro-karaoke contingent has been *starting threads* pushing pro-audit, pro-certifications, pro-legal scenarios much less *starting multiple threads* on the same topic.

Please prove it instead of just claiming it to be so.

The only hinderance to your search will be having to filter out all of your own BS threads to find threads from other people.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Yeah I follow through with that Chris, just like you called CAVS, you couldn't even to that after I gave you the number. When I meant the manus were flooding the forums with their propaganda it wasn't them doing it directly, if was through the spokes persons. Insane KJ, Jimbo, the cheerleades, and others they have fooled. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee, it sure don't smell like Hills Bros, either bro.

You posted your findings from CAVS. What else would I have to contribute? I also don't use CAVS so what do I have to gain by calling CAVS?

The big difference - and I mean REALLY big difference - is that I didn't make an unsubstantiated claim about anything. A simple search will be able to prove your statement true or false. Please do it and post the findings. We all know the answer already, but I would like to see you just once take responsibility and hold yourself accountable for what you say.

So again......please prove yourself correct.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Where is the other thread on this forum about this devastating defeat for SC?

Just like a reporter I followed a lead not knowing where it would take me Chris. You remember the reason I contacted CAVS in the first place to find out about PR saying they had the right to audit and verify the status of SCDG's a CAVS product. That is when I got the information about the recent court decision that also included a jury finding. I didn't say it was the gospel did I, it took several days, and several posts before all the information came out. You can bet if the decision had gone the other way Insane KJ would have been on here two weeks ago rubbing it in everyone's face. Jimbo would have been on here saying see this proves the legality of our actions. Let's be fair about all of this.

Look under the thread Validity of SCDG's?