I went through the claims in order on RPF that he shot down....

That was a huge longshot and I never thought he seriously had a chance of actually claiming anything about his rights to the design....but ya he'll either have to sell more fishponds....but his website is still open all this time...????

I understand that some people see this as a victory for AA, but if you read the text of the document, Ainsworth has basically lost all credibility.

The bottom line is that Liz Moore and Brian Muir sculpted the stormtrooper, not Ainsworth. If people don't read the actual text and rely on the media's interpretation of the document, they miss quite a lot, so those who hope their AA helmets will increase in price will have to bear in mind that the point of collecting them was the hope that they were formed off of the original molds. If the original mold was fiberglass, then whatever gray buck (patched with white in various areas) that Ainsworth has been using is far from the mold supplied to him by LFL. Any increase in value would solely be out of rarety and nothing more, as there are helmets that are far more accurate and more affordable and are simply better investments. Many acquired AA helmets based on a lie. That lie has been exposed.

Newcomers to the community should be encouraged to read Mann's document before going to AA's website.

If AA is now compelled to sell more wares to raise money for continued litigation, it remains to be seen how successful he will be. I certainly hope the document opened up many people's eyes.

Mac.

AA will never be able to sell enough wares to defend himself should/when LFL starts the next round.

However, with respect to your post, I thought the judge clearly said that it was Nick Pemberton who sculpted the Stormtrooper head, not Liz Moore.

Also the judge didnt made any specific statements about the moulds AA was using now - so we're no clearer on that from the points thats been discussed at length over the last few years. I dont think anyone believes AA had the original Armour moulds - since theyre clearly RotJ derivatives (shoulder aside), but the stormtrooper helmet (or more likely the face plate) and other helmets (TIE/Xwing/RFT) are not so clear - and something I'm sure there will continue to be much debate on.

I agree with your credibility point. The Judges comments were quite damning.

Cheers

Jez

I don't believe he shot them down he interpreted them different under UK law... No where did he say flat out that any of the claims made it the US case were false, just not applicable under UK law...

This is and was to be expected...

I caught that. His attributing Pemberton to the sculpt made me wonder where Liz Moore's contribution came into play. Perhaps I haven't kept up with my Den reading, but I still want to acknowledge Liz Moore posthumously.

Reading this document put up by exoray, I was struck by how much it came across like a diary. I've not read that many Judgments from U.S. courts, but they strike me as being more written in a matter of fact style.

I think the Judge agreed that U.S. Copyright law was violated. But U.S. Copyright law can only be enforced in the U.S. The United States and the U.K. have certain similarities, and given the relationship between the two countries, both will look out for each other's intellectual property to a certain extent. The UK copyright law is authored differently and perhaps as a result was enforceable only to the extent that it was applicable. Had this been done before expiration, the judgment could have been enforced. The Judge appeared to suggest that a possible venue for pursuing damages was industrial law (did I get the terminology right?).

So this does NOT mean that "Ainsworth won". It means that he narrowly escaped due to a legal technicality, not because of his awesome performance in court which, as I read Mann's writing, was little more than a comedy to be polite. That someone who performed the way Ainsworth did could not only such broad authorship but to believe he was entitled to a portion of the profits of Star Wars is arrogance and delusion at the highest level.

I have to say this to Ainsworth's credit, that it takes balls to stick to your guns and authorship claims, even if it means constantly flip-flopping and changing your recollection and dates in order for your claims to come across as more credible. But having balls isn't the same as having brains.

More like stupidity than balls, imo.

"Ainsworth-tinted spectacles"
Fantastic.

If you guys checked AA website lately, he is expanding his business...maybe trying to find alternative resources to finance his crusade.

www.ainsworthpaddles.net

Cheers

A

Smart guy. He should simply have been honest regarding his involvement, and I think his sports equipment business would have really soared.

For example...

SHOT DOWN

SHOT DOWN

SHOT DOWN

SHOT DOWN

SHOT DOWN

Shoott down:



SHOT DOWN = REJECTED

tk3422 is there something unusual about your avatar? I can't download any html page when it appears on a webpage.

That is all fine and dandy but those were all UK claims, what part of the US case was shot down again? As you implied?



"passing off" = UK claim...



"use of confidential information" = UK claim...



Again double wording, this refers to the UK contractual claim, the UK passing off claim and the UK contractual claim... Again all UK claims...



Cape = reference to UK case law (Adams v Cape Industries plc) nothing to do with US case... And of course the US judgment is not enforceable, it has to be backed by a UK court to be enforceable I have said that all along...



As I have said all along punitive damages are not awarded in the UK, it doesn't mean they were shot down it means that enforcement is bared by UK law...



Not so fast there, maybe you missed the following part...



It is pretty clear LFL left out the US claims and based most of this trial on a new set of claims, leaving out the US case as the Judge implied...



This is the only common claim between the US and UK cases and the Judge agreed with it...

Maybe you need a refresher course on what the US claims were?

1st = Copyright Infringement
2nd = Unfair Competition
3rd = Trademark Infringement/Unfair Competition
4th = State Common Law Unfair Competition

Now the 1st claim succeeded in the UK courts, the 2nd and 4rd were not pressed unless you want to group them as "passing off" as they are US and California specific laws, and the 3rd was abandoned in the UK trial...

So stating that "the judge shot down many of the claims from the US judgment." is far fetched he merely shot down UK based claims... One US claim was upheld, one was abandoned by LFL and the other 2 don't apply to the UK...

Thats his long standing business, since the early eighties - not new. If you look at the original "street" stormtrooper photos outside his shop in '76 you can see a canoe in the window. I think at that time that was one of his main areas of business and evolved into paddles and canoing stuff until 2003/4 when he went back to the helmets and armour - but still kept the sports stuff going.

Cheers

Jez