Karaoke Forums

Actually, that is what you are saying. What the judge said was - "In addition Plaintiff’s alleged failure to produce favorable evidence at trial, which Plaintiff had previously indicated it had and would use, did not harm the Defendants, and in fact could only have helped them at trial."

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Let it Spin Let it Spin Let it Spin: Parody time:

Oh the pirates are making money

and the Sleps don't think it's funny

The lawyers can't seem to agree

so the tracks will continue to be free

What the judge also said was:

"Although this Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants following discovery, the Sixth Circuit reversed that judgment
finding that Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find in its favor on the necessary elements of Plaintiff’s claims."

Moreover, if "RaokeBoy" had been at the trial, he would have seen that our bag was far from "empty." We presented testimony from former employees of the defendants who had been involved in selling and in creating the pirated hard drives. We also presented testimony from a customer who had purchased one of the pirated hard drives, and from an expert witness who had forensically examined that drive and drawn several conclusions about its origins. Additionally, the defendants called one of their customers as a witness; that customer admitted having purchased pre-loaded CAVS machines that contained SC tracks for which he did not own discs in a 1:1 ratio.

Under those circumstances, it was frustrating to lose at trial; that's why we've appealed.

"RaokeBoy" errs, despite his being an attorney who should know better, because he suffers from the conceit that his experience is the universal truth, when in fact his experience is an extreme outlier based on documented misconduct by a person who was in a position of trust. By cherry-picking this comment--which, from context, clearly does NOT mean what he says it does--RaokeBoy is seeking to create a false impression about SC here and in the court of public opinion. To what end he is operating, I cannot say. But what I can say is that if we lost at trial because the record was as devoid of evidence of misconduct as RaokeBoy ignorantly declares it was, then Judge Nugent would have had no difficulty granting the motion. He didn't. For a reasonable person, that should end the inquiry.

So, after hearing from Roakeboy and Jim, I have a question:

Is the Karaoke Kandy Store still in business- under that name or any other?

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

But didn't Judge Nugent grant defendants' motion for summary judgment (which was later reversed on appeal thus making trial available)? And then at trial, wasn't he somewhat vindicated by the jury which found Slep-tone's evidence, whatever value you wish to attach to it Jim, didn't amount to a hill of beans? And exactly how many jurors went your way Jimbo? And you really expect the appellate court will reweigh the evidence and determine that no reasonable jury could have found for defendants? Seems a bit of pipe dream Jim. But hey, what do I know? Any other trials coming up? For grins, I just might decide to attend.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

Ah. For some reason I didn't know they were one and the same. I know that this site has been selling discs as well, because it has been discussed here.


So it doesn't matter whether the KKS were right or wrong ( Although in this case it sure LOOKED like they were wrong, even to me.), in terms of their goal, SC lost the case.

The sad part is that if they even looked bad to me, I would tend to think that there was enough evidence somewhere that it should have been a win for SC, had the case been presented properly.

_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"

" Disc based and loving it..."

Maybe this new case accusing a principal of KKS of infringement will go to trial if you can get out of Suite 1300.

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/trad ... i/summary/

_________________
-- Mark

I am amazed. A Slep-tone lawsuit filed against one individual. Are they actually learning something? Maybe Slep and the gang will actually answer some discovery. If it is the same "evidence" they put forth at trial last time, why do they think the goose egg result will be any different?