Forum - View topicNEWS: Pokémon Party Planner: Settlement Offer Rescinded
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dessa
 Posts: 4438 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
I think what some people are forgetting is that we're only getting one side of the story, and there is no evidence to back up that side of the story.
The facts of the case *This guy held 4 parties, using names and imagery that is copyright of TPCi. *At these parties, it cost money to get in, there were prizes available, and themed-drinks were available. *On August 27th, he planned to hold a 5th party *On August 26th, court papers were filed against him *The court papers do not specify specific damages, but include court and lawyer costs (note: I did read the entirety of the papers that were filed) *The court papers were filed for a jury trial. *The original case was against him, his buddy, and the company owned by the two of them. *The venue was not included in the defendants. *The suit against his buddy was dropped. What he claims (no evidence to support these claims) *He made no money off the parties. *He had only brought in $500 from ticket sales, and put out $450 for venue, etc. *He received no C&D. *He was offered a settlement of $4000 and had 45 days to fill it. *He offered to set up a payment plan, was denied. What we don't know *When/how TPCi became aware of the parties, and how long they were investigating/working on the situation. *If he actually made money off the parties. He reportedly works at the venue, and we have no clue what either the contract for the party itself, nor his employment entails, so we cannot guess on if his statement is a) accurate, b) false, or c) only refers to the party itself, and not what he's making via employment at the venue. *The terms of the lawsuit being dismissed against his partner. *If the alleged settlement was actually offered, nor if there was a deadline on it. *If the second alleged settlement ($5k for lawyer fees, $400 for court costs) has been offered. There's a lot to this that we either don't know, or can't verify. Because the court papers filed were for a jury trial, others have said that a judge would have to sign off on any settlement agreement. I don't know this for certain, but it sounds reasonable. I'm not sure if that would have to be before or after it's fulfilled, though. Additionally, settlements usually come from one of two reasons: 1) The plaintiff isn't certain they can win, but it's reasonable enough that the defendant might lose that they'll want to avoid trial, or 2) Neither party wants to actually go through the hassle of a trial. Assuming there's at least basis in reality for procedural shows, settlement offers are generally not rescinded unless new evidence/events have come to light that would mean that they have a better chance at winning, and don't have to settle. Given that the copyright infringement is fairly clear-cut (whether or not you agree with the suit, it's still clear-cut copyright infringement), I'm not sure why TPCi would fear losing the case. IF the settlement was actually offered, the second alleged offer would likely be for reason 2 to settle. If the first alleged offer existed, it was likely rescinded because of his actions online, and I'd expect that yes, they rescinded it because it's not going to look very good in the eyes of the court that he's broadcasting details of the suit that are not yet public, and yes, if he is in any way distorting the details, then yes, it could be defamation. Until official paperwork on any settlement is released, or the case goes to trial, TPCi isn't going to say anything, because it could damage their case (just as him going public can be damaging his case). Until then, we won't have all of the details or both sides of the story, so it's really just a he said/they said, and we're speculating without all the facts. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
checarlos87
 Posts: 31 |
|
|||||||||||||
It doesn't look that way at all. He's not a "little guy"; he's a business owner organizing money-making events that use another company's intellectual property in ways that are highly inappropriate given the kind of brand Pokémon is.
Again, TPCi (and any other company) doesn't need to warn somebody first before taking action on these matters. Especially when the use of the IP would be so inappropriate, TPCi does well in acting without warning. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
leafy sea dragon
 Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||||||||||||
|
I wonder: What would be the reasons to drop charges for one person but not the other? Did they find out that the other person, in fact, have no part in any copyright-infringing part of the party? Or would they be dropped if the other guy quietly chose to pay the fees and have no further part in it all?
The thing is that, I feel, having a crowdfunding campaign to pay for legal fees is an attempt by him (whether successful or not) to look like the grassroots underdog up against the big heartless corporation. He is playing spin-doctor. But you're also right--the point of those fees, I feel, was to get him to feel some consequences, but he weaseled his way out of it.
I've seen enough of those failing-businesses shows to know that most small businesses don't have people with basic accounting knowledge on their staff, at least until they grow to a larger size. And someone can claim to be an accountant without having any real accounting experience, so they could have an accountant on their team and STILL not have anyone with basic knowledge. Also, The Pokémon Company International is under the thumb of Nintendo, but it has an independent legal team. It's the reason you don't see Pokémon cross over with Nintendo stuff very often: TPCi has the power to say "no" to Nintendo itself.
And:
They took what Mr. Jones said at face value. He's also playing on people with an existing grudge against Nintendo and people who believe strongly in Davids facing Goliaths. (This David had been leeching off of this Goliath's possessions, but it matters not to them. They're likely people who empathize with Tyler Durden up to the very end of Fight Club.) Basically, these people only heard one side of the story and acted upon it. Some of the benefactors were likely also potential party-goers who are now deeply unhappy and want to pay a lot more than they would have at the party to support Jones.
He is NOT naïve. As a pinball fan in 2015, I've seen this all unfold for Kevin Kulek before, and this Jones guy is exactly like Kulek: He knows he's in deep trouble and is only pretending to be naïve because he wants to paint himself as the innocent good guy who got trampled on for not knowing better. The only thing he is truly naïve about is that he never considered seeking legal advice. The thought likely never occurred to him, and now he's doing damage control.
I doubt he'll do that. He has a big ego. He has the audacity to repeatedly hold Pokémon-themed drinking parties without seeking legal advice (most likely because he thought he'd never be caught), then, when he IS attacked legally, attempts to fight a slap on the wrist. He's done all of this stuff that's outright legally WRONG without a lawyer. He thinks he can get away with anything. He'll only get a lawyer when he's out of options AND everyone is telling him to do so.
I ought to point out to you that it's "TPCi," which stands for "The Pokémon Company International," and not "TCPi." |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Adamanto
Posts: 146 |
|
|||||||||||||
I made that post before I had looked all that closely at the exact things he had been saying and just how badly he had distorted facts to make him look like a victim. At the moment I'm more on the "they're taking this to court to get the actual truth out there instead of rewarding the guy for libel and slander" side. |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group