KjAthena said:
Just a quick question for you all to consider....why would SC spend resources to file anything once a defendant once said defendant agreed to settlement? Once he agreed to the settlement why spend more $$$ to block the defendant motion to dissmiss ? not underhanded just part of the business/legal process. I think as we watch this develop we will find the settlement takes precidence and Ernie will have to continue to pay as he agreed or face a new suit being filed. The dismissal was only due to SC not responding promptly to him motion to dismiss for whatever reason. His motion was not ruled on by a judge...most likley not even reveiwed. As logical as some of his points may sound in his motion according to my Attny they are not legally sound. Nothing in the dismissal prevents SC from re-filing against him with the exact same info they used the first time. I would ask everyone to review all of the posts on this board using logic before they decide to try and use Ernie as a "poster child". He has not answered a number of questions adequetly for me to hold him up as a valid example. We also do not know the "background" info SC has to prove he was not 1-1. I do beleive he did own a large # of discs but based upon his own words I question his 1-1 status. The "critical error" with his books is just too much for me to get past for someone that has been in business for as long as he has. What KJ would put themselves in the position to have to tell singers repeatedly and for long peroids of time they do not have songs that are listed in the books? We have all faced this upon occation when a disc was misplaced/broken or stollen and it sux. He wont even post how many systems he was using at the time of his investigation or how many shows he was running. 7000 disc(1/2 sound choice) sounds like alot but how many systems they are spread across make a big difference ie 7000 discs spread over 7 systems would require 7 copies of each disc to avoid the "critical book error"
BTW 7000 discs did not turn our van into a lowrider when we carried them to SC for our audit and I question the notarized statments he had signed because I doubt any bar owners looked at each disc before signing ( know how many hours that took for our audits 6 total for those who want to know)
On the contrary, the dismissal is a judicial order. The motion was most certainly reviewed by the judge who ruled on the dismissal. If it was without merit the motion itself could have been dismissed. But alas - the single most defeating point of his motion is the
demand for proof of a valid derivative product license on behalf of Sound Choice. This effectively haults the case unless and until SC provides proof of standing to trademark the derivative copyrighted works in question. The burden of proof rests with SC to show standing before the allegations can proceed.
As we have seen recently with Chartbuster, Sound Choice was apparently unable to produce the licenses needed to proceed with thier case, and instead continued to press Ernie outside of the courtroom. The motion was granted becuase SC failed to provide a court ordered answer. Sound Choice also failed to make the "settlement" a part of the case - and that case is now dismissed
with prejudice.
You are incorrect about the "settlement" because, it
was never submitted too or approved by the court and consequently has no bearing on a case dismissed with prejudice.
SC can not bring action again on this defendant on the same matter. It is also not correct to call it a "settlement." It appears that Ernie was simply duped into making a
retail purchase of a new disc set. It was transacted without the protection of the court against an issue now ruled mute. If Ernie fails to pay any outstanding balance they may refer it to
collection - however, court action is unlikley due to the jeopardy (duress) attached to this sale, and the dismissal with prejudice of the implied purpose.
The proof of license is a very basic and common interogatory in such cases, and it was a very prudent move on Ernie's part to include it within a motion for dismissal. I recommend anyone sued by a karaoke manufacturer remember to do the same and include this important first step.
It is also not clear that this trademark complaint can be applied at the individual track level. If the tradermark applies to the volume of works as a whole then only a singular infringement occurs on any given date/venue. This would represnt a profound change to the statutory "damage" estimates SC uses to scare people. It would not matter how many unauthorized tracks are present - each evening would still be only a singular infringement.
Athena, what is the basis for your personal desire to assassinate Ernie's character? The complaint was dismissed. Your personal opinion of how he should run his business and how many discs is required to do that legitimately carries no weight.
