ComicKaze Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 PRESS RELEASE - March 3, 2004 – Dallas, Texas.The law firm of Storm & Hemingway has provided the following press release: On Friday, February 27, 2004, HardOCP.com filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against Infinium Labs to establish its position that there was nothing improper, untruthful or defamatory about its September 17, 2003 article Behind The Infinium Phantom Console. The lawsuit was filed by this firm in the name of KB Networks, Inc. the owner of HardOCP.com. The lawsuit was filed to clear the air and terminate the flurry of demands, allegations, and defamatory Internet posts directed against HardOCP.com, by Infinium Labs and law firms representing Infinium Labs and its CEO, Tim Roberts. The lawsuit was filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, which permits a person or entity being threatened with lawsuits from another party to force the issue to be decided, rather than having to operate under a cloud of uncertainty and intimidation. HardOCP.com stands by its article, and we believe that the Federal Court will conclude, as HardOCP.com believes, that all relevant facts in the article are true. After the lawsuit was filed on Friday, HardOCP.com received another demand letter from attorneys for Infinium Labs detailing the statements in Behind The Infinium Phantom Console that Infinium Labs alleges are at issue. Nothing in that demand letter changes HardOCP.com’s conviction that all of the relevant facts in the article are true. We look forward to a decisive vindication by the Federal Court of HardOCP.com’s credibility, integrity, and right to free speech. Storm & Hemingway can be found at http://www.alliplaw.com. This was recently posted on a variety of news channels. If you've been following this, Infinium Labs used pretty much the same "scare tactics" that Harmony Gold's lawyers used against dealers and distributors a year or two ago who were selling imported Macross products like Yamato. Do you guys remember the ridiculous letters they sent out to people warning them with the threat of lawsuit if they didn't stop selling Macross products because they had the liscense? It had the air of nothing but a scare tactic and lawyers often resort to such means. In the Infinium Labs vs HardOCP.com story, HardOCP published an expose about Infinium Labs and their CEO and months later, Infinium got a gaggle of lawyers to send a letter to HardOCP intimidating lawsuits if he didn't censor, edit, and remove sections of Kyle's article. I was just thinking, as I was reading through that post, it said that HardOCP filed counter-suit with the Declaratory Judgement Act. The lawsuit was filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, which permits a person or entity being threatened with lawsuits from another party to force the issue to be decided, rather than having to operate under a cloud of uncertainty and intimidation. Could the people who recieved Harmony Gold's letters and threats back then also have used this act to protect themsevles instead of pulling products and importation? Quote
Mr March Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 A very interesting question. Hopefully someone here will know the proper answer (ie. not the flurry of random, uneducated guesses we usually find in these threads). Quote
Jolly Rogers Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 The answer is not whether they can or cannot, but whether it is practical for the dealers to do so. Any dealer foolish enough to take HG to court to force the issue resolved better have a war chest that matches the size of HG's. HG will bury whoever dares to take them to court with their own lawyers, unless you can afford more and better lawyers than HG. Quote
cwbrown Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 Yeah, Jolly's got it right. Any of the dealers could, but it's probably prohibitively expensive. In case you didn't know, just a cheap, run-of-the-mill lawsuit can easily cost $20,000 to prosecute. A Dec Action requires the filing of a complete complaint, with all the requirements of service of process. At $250 an hour for billing, and it takes about 20 hours to investigate, draft, and file, that's $5,000 just to get started. The folks around here were trying to scrounge up something like $1,000 just to respond to the cease and desist letter. I don't think any one of them would have been ready to file a declaratory action. Quote
Ali Sama Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 (edited) ty for the info. yamato is not a macross product btw.. They are one of th emanufactures of macross products not the product itself like you have stated. Edited March 9, 2004 by Ali Sama Quote
MSW Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 (edited) I don't know for sure but found this: http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1920_69/udja22.htm which seems to be a copy of the act in question... also Declaratory judgments permit parties to a controversy to determine rights, duties, obligations or status. The United States Constitution (Article III, Section 2) limits the exercise of the judicial power to 'cases' and 'controversies.' The Declaratory Judgment Act in its limitation to 'cases of actual controversy,' refers to the constitutional provision and is operative only in respect to controversies which are such in the constitutional sense. A justiciable controversy is thus distinguished from a difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character; from one that is academic or moot. The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). For adjudication of constitutional issues 'concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions' are requisite. The power of courts to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress arises only when the interests of litigants require the use of the judicial authority for their protection against actual interference. A hypothetical threat is not enough. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947). from this I don't think the act applies...maybe if the dealers were acting with a license from BW, Yamato, etc. to distribute the products in question...then the act could *possably* be called upon to decide whom had the legal athority over the license...even then I'm not sure this act would apply. But, I'm no lawyer... Edited March 9, 2004 by MSW Quote
the white drew carey Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 (edited) Well, IIRC, Blasto-Toys was the only retailer to actually retain the services of a lawyer against HG. So I'm assuming the lawyer would've known the options going in, but since many of the events regarding Spidey and his lawyer are not disclosed, we can only speculate. What we do know is that Spidey's lawyer contacted HG and their lawyers requesting proof of their claims, which HG refused to devulge. And that's where we stand. Sometimes I wish I would win the lottery, just so I can get a license from BigWest and force the issue here in the States. With a couple million in my pocket, I'm sure I could make a case last long enough to straighten out the whole debacle. Edited March 9, 2004 by the white drew carey Quote
the white drew carey Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 BTW- Is there a link to the original article that this hoopla is about? Quote
Duke Togo Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 ...better have a war chest that matches the size of HG's. HAHAHAHAHA!! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.