|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
RaokeBoy
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:22 am |
|
 |
| Senior Poster |
 |
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:07 pm
Posts: 110
Been Liked: 16 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: RaokeBoy wrote: chrisavis wrote: 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 Where is the other thread on this forum about this devastating defeat for SC?  Look under the thread Validity of SCDG's? Yes down on page 2, there is your reference to the text of the actual judgment. "Each Juror affirmatively responded to the correctness of the Answer. The Court accepted the Interrogatory Answer and the Jury was then discharged. THEREFORE, based upon the Interrogatory Answer, and the evidence presented at trial, the Court enters Judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in favor of the Defendants Karaoke Kandy Store, Inc. and Charles M. Polidori on Plaintiff's Complaint. All costs are to be paid by the Plaintiff." Seems to confirm that each juror and the judge agreed that KKS won the trial. SC did not have proof of trademark infringement. Devastating for SC.
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:57 am |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
RaokeBoy wrote: Seems to confirm that each juror and the judge agreed that KKS won the trial. SC did not have proof of trademark infringement. Devastating for SC. I would be interested to know precisely why you consider this to be "devastating," as opposed to merely a loss. Please be specific.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:00 am |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: RaokeBoy wrote: Seems to confirm that each juror and the judge agreed that KKS won the trial. SC did not have proof of trademark infringement. Devastating for SC. I would be interested to know precisely why you consider this to be "devastating," as opposed to merely a loss. Please be specific. It definitely hurts SC's credibility. And it hurts YOUR cause. If you pile up a few more of those decisions you may find it harder to fulfill your mission.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:16 am |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
|
It might help to know that a synonym for "devastate" is "destroy."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:59 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
|
Lone Ranger - Still waiting.
-Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:01 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
|
And while we are on the subject of destroying credibility, that is why I am pressing you, Lone Ranger. I find it difficult to believe you saying that SC's credibility is destroyed when yours is being publicly questioned.
-Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:04 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
chrisavis wrote: And while we are on the subject of destroying credibility, that is why I am pressing you, Lone Ranger. I find it difficult to believe you saying that SC's credibility is destroyed when yours is being publicly questioned.
-Chris Ummm, actually, I am the one who mentioned credibility. But I said hurt not destroy.
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
RaokeBoy
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:44 pm |
|
|
| Senior Poster |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:07 pm
Posts: 110
Been Liked: 16 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: It might help to know that a synonym for "devastate" is "destroy." This decision is far worse than the Florida decision. What came after that was a finding by a federal judge that SC is a troll - in fact "takes trolling to the next level" were Judge Wright's words, no? Subsequent to the Florida debacle, a "win" of a grand total of $9K based on full retail price of what 58 CDs instead of what the law allows "lost profit" which is what Kurt himslef testifed was $6-$7 per disc. So that judgment, if it holds up, at best should have been 1/3 of $9K after pleadings, discovery and trial - clearly not a result that is worth a lawyer's time. Oh, then we have a sanctions order where SC had to pay Taka-O $18K for a bogus case. Now we have a jury verdict and a federal judge agreeing that SC's trademark infringement case against Karaoke Kandy Store was worthless. Such a result exposes SC to attorney's fees under the very statute SC has sued on. and will do so in the future. (See Judge Wright's order awarding fees under 15 USC sec. 1117(a).) Assuming you actually provide the truth of these horrid results, just how are you going to convince contingency lawyers in the future to take more cases? (Doubtless SC knows to not to pay them hourly.) The only thing you can truthfully tell them is that going to trial is more costly than any result SC has achieved when actually opposed and pressed for evidence, that is if the KKS case is not cited immediately in a Rule 11 sanctions motion as track record evidence SC has no proof when it filed the case. The only track you can use is to convince them to drive settlements instead of trial. And that activity wholly supports Judge Wright's order that Slep-tone is vexatious and merely trolls for settlements and cannot back up its allegations which will lead to even more sanctions against not only Slep-tone, but also the lawyers themselves which I know you are well familiar with. Did I about cover it James?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Smoothedge69
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:48 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:55 am
Posts: 3885
Images: 0
Been Liked: 397 times
|
|
Damn, where is that popcorn smiley when you need it???
_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:35 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Plus Poster |
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
|
chrisavis wrote: Lone Ranger - Still waiting.
-Chris Just as I'm waiting still for you Chris.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
The Lone Ranger
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:42 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Plus Poster |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am
Posts: 6103
Been Liked: 634 times
|
chrisavis wrote: And while we are on the subject of destroying credibility, that is why I am pressing you, Lone Ranger. I find it difficult to believe you saying that SC's credibility is destroyed when yours is being publicly questioned.
-Chris You are not pressing me in the least Chris. My credibility about what? Like I explained to you on another post I didn't start out looking for this Kandy Store story; it sort fell in my lap when I was checking out the question about PR and their connection with auditing SCDG's a CAVS product. This whole SC legal process sort of reminds me of that movie "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight". I remember in the old gangster movies the line about" those guys couldn't knock over a Kandy Store", I guess it still holds up.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:11 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: chrisavis wrote: Lone Ranger - Still waiting.
-Chris Just as I'm waiting still for you Chris. You haven't asked me anything other than what you and everyone else already know. I am not going to call CAVS and then repeat what you have already posted. Actually, now that I have typed that, and given your predilection for not getting information correct (and/or twisting it), I probably should call CAVS and then post the responses here so everyone is ensured of having the correct information. -Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:14 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: chrisavis wrote: And while we are on the subject of destroying credibility, that is why I am pressing you, Lone Ranger. I find it difficult to believe you saying that SC's credibility is destroyed when yours is being publicly questioned.
-Chris You are not pressing me in the least Chris. My credibility about what? Like I explained to you on another post I didn't start out looking for this Kandy Store story; it sort fell in my lap when I was checking out the question about PR and their connection with auditing SCDG's a CAVS product. This whole SC legal process sort of reminds me of that movie "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight". I remember in the old gangster movies the line about" those guys couldn't knock over a Kandy Store", I guess it still holds up. This is what I am referring to regarding your credibility. But you know this and simply don't want to back it up. The Lone Ranger wrote: 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. -Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
RaokeBoy
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:30 pm |
|
|
| Senior Poster |
|
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:07 pm
Posts: 110
Been Liked: 16 times
|
|
Chris - It is entirely proper if an off topic subject is raised in a thread to initiate a new topic as was done here. It allows for a more focused discussion.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:49 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
RaokeBoy wrote: Chris - It is entirely proper if an off topic subject is raised in a thread to initiate a new topic as was done here. It allows for a more focused discussion. I do not believe for a moment that you proactively read the threads here then decided to post your own thread to "allow for more focused discussion". You all but called yourself out on that one with asking where another version of it was. Not a very good attempt at covering yourself at all. -Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:52 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
The Lone Ranger wrote: 8) You don't read any of Insane's stuff do you? Jimbo is always so helpful, as long as it is pushing his agenda as he calls everyone's positions. I thought you were supposed to be the neutral one Chris, just how neutral are you really? I think these last few days have sort of unmasked this whole legal process for what it really is. It's legal alright, it is using the legal system to leverage hosts out of their money in order to support a manu who no longer can support themselves. SC knows the average host and venue doesn't stand a chance fighting them in court because of the time and money it takes to do so. They bank on it, that the defendants will throw up their hands and make the payoff, in order to get rid of them. Just like CAVS told me it is one huge racketeering scam. You are trying to apply a case regarding a retailer to individual karaoke hosts. There is a difference. -Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
earthling12357
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:58 pm |
|
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 pm
Posts: 1609
Location: Earth
Been Liked: 307 times
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
chrisavis
|
Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:28 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:38 pm
Posts: 6086
Images: 1
Location: Redmond, WA
Been Liked: 1665 times
|
earthling12357 wrote: Challenging a confessed computer illiterate curmudgeon to a task that requires a slight degree of computer skills and logical thought process seems a bit unfair. I don't feel the slightest bit guilty for that. Searching forums doesn't take computer skills. It just takes a little time and trial and error. I wasn't asking anyone to whip out a machine language complier. viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28290 - Started by Gretchen to offer info, not push Certs. She even said "If this is something you would NOT be interested in please no negativity"viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28482InsaneKJ inquiring why a blog was taken down. Not pushing an agenda. viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28468Not an original thread. Split from another thread. viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28417Athena telling a story of how she was trying to save someone from piracy. Not pushing an agenda. viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28366Posted Public info on a case that is still yet to be resolved. Not pushing an agenda. viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28058Started by Gretchen. Again, providing info. This time from the summit. I think I have made my case. None of these meet the criteria I specified - 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. earthling12357 wrote: Your term "pro-karaoke contingent" is inaccurate and insulting. Good. It was intended to offend some. Not you specifically, but if the shoe fits. There are a great many that claim to be pro-karaoke that in my opinion absolutely aren't. Those that blast KJ's that pirate but look the other way when singers do. Those that do everything possible to stand in the way of the manufacturers making any progress regardless of their tactics. I can go on but I think people are smart enough to figure out the rest and connects the dots to the usual suspects. -Chris
_________________
-Chris
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 138 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
