CGL Speculation #7 Options

[urgru]

Which is why it's interesting to see a lawyer refer to the colemans as "the members" in an official document. That's not the kind of "Mistake" a lawyer should make at court.

The declaration's discussion of the rights relationships between Topps, Microsoft, Smith & Tinker, IMR and the various sublicensors was also a bit muddled, and it suggests Topps holds computer game rights. It true that the ownership and nature of the rights isn't publicly clear, but conventional wisdom has been that the bulk of the electronic rights lie with Microsoft and/or S&T.

Between the owner ambiguity and the license discussion, it seems like the declaration was drafted quickly and with an eye towards conveying important points relevant to the motion at hand - when the attorney spoke with key figures, the general nature of IMR's business (scifi and fantasy publishing), etc. There may not be much value in overparsing the discussiothor either issue at present. Either the same statements will be made in future filings made with more opportunity for review or they'll be refined for clarity. Wait and see.

[Thanlis]

The registration detail for IMR is available here. It lists both the Colemans as "Governing Persons," and nobody else. You can order some of the documentation about the company if you're really curious, but I'm not sure that'd contain the names of all the members. You don't file operating agreements with the state, so no way to get that.

I'm mostly posting because I'm hoping someone more curious than I ponies up the fifteen bucks or so to get copies of relevant information.

[Fuchs]

The declaration also seems to muddle the rights relationships between Topps, Microsoft, Smith & Tinker, IMR and the various sublicensors and refers to Topps as holding computer game rights. It true that the ownership and nature of the rights isn't publicly clear, but general understanding seems to be that the bulk of the electronic rights lie with Microsoft and/or S&T. This is a declaration slapped together under time constraints and meant to address the summary judgment motion, not the finer points if the case. The exact nature of the ownership and the licenses wasn't essential to the summary judgment decision, so overparsing the discussion thereof at present may not be fruitful. I'd expect things to be clearer in future filings - either the same statements will be made, or they'll be refined for clarity. Wait and see. :-o

The lawyer has done a shitty job then. A legal statement is meant to be parsed.

[Fuchs]

It depends on what the meaning of the "the" is.

The difference between "the members" and "members" is clear.

[Taharqa]

The difference between "the members" and "members" is clear.

Sorry, next time I will use [sarcasm] tags.

[Fuchs]

Sorry, next time I will use [sarcasm] tags.

You shouldn't use sarcasm on the internet, especially when talking about legal matters.

[urgru]

The lawyer has done a shitty job then. A legal statement is meant to be parsed.

I take it you have a fair bit of experience with American motion practice? No? You're a European who has no practical experience with the American legal system? Ok ...

I don't claim to know what's going on in this case, but I know motion work often requires ridiculous turnarounds and, for better or worse, often lacks the precision of briefing. Paralegals do a lot of it, sometimes w. little more than cursory attorney review. I'm not going to call a Continental lawyer like you "shitty" without some working knowledge of practice norms in your legal system. You should consider showing a similar amount of respect and restraint. If he's "shitty," IMR will surely replace him.

[Fuchs]

I take it you have a fair bit of experience with American motion practice? No? You're a European whose never had experience with the American legal system? Ok ...

I don't claim to know what's going on in this case, but I know motion work often requires ridiculous turnarounds and, for better or worse, often lacks the precision of briefing. Paralegals do a lot of it, sometimes w. little more than cursory attorney review. I'm not going to call a Continental lawyer like you "shitty" without some working knowledge of practice norms in your legal system. You should consider showing a similar amount of respect and restraint. If he's "shitty," IMR will surely replace him.

I do not think expecting a legal statement to be both precise and correct in all points is too much to ask for from a lawyer. Unless we are talking about verbal replies during a cort session they do have enough time to check their statements before mailing them off. If they have paralegals work for them they still are responsible. And it's not as if this was some easy mistake either. One reason you hire a lawyer is so they can word your statements in the best way possible. Sloppy wording is not something you expect, especially since - and doubly so in contractual matters - a single word can make or break a case.

[Octopiii]

I do not think expecting a legal statement to be both precise and correct in all points is too much to ask for from a lawyer. Unless we are talking about verbal replies during a cort session they do have enough time to check their statements before mailing them off. If they have paralegals work for them they still are responsible. And it's not as if this was some easy mistake either. One reason you hire a lawyer is so they can word your statements in the best way possible. Sloppy wording is not something you expect, especially since - and doubly so in contractual matters - a single word can make or break a case.

In the interest of brevity, I'll just say this: you know far less than you think you do. Motions are wrong factually, grammatically, and legally, all the time. As uguru said, they are drafted by paralegals who don't really know anything other than what they've been told to do.

Motion's aren't meant to be read as closely as a statute or a court opinion. Everyone here needs to chill out about this phrase "the members" being stated in a motion to deny summary judgment. Those things are 90% boilerplate, 10% plugging in factual information.

[Caine Hazen]

Make your own thread about unicorns, please, and do not derail this.

Fuchs, please do not attempt to do the job of the moderation staff. If you have a complaint, please report it to the moderation staff like everyone else does.

[kzt]

Fuchs, please do not attempt to do the job of the moderation staff. If you have a complaint, please report it to the moderation staff like everyone else does.

People would probably by less sensitive to this if part of the moderation staff (Bull) hadn't stated, in the thread, that they were throwing stuff that included sexual harassment into the thread explicitly to derail it or get it shut down.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

People would probably by less sensitive to this if part of the moderation staff (Bull) hadn't stated, in the thread, that they were throwing stuff that included sexual harassment into the thread explicitly to derail it or get it shut down.

Huh?

Besides, I was under the impression that Bull was no longer an Administrator, by his own admission...

Keep the Faith

[Kid Chameleon]

The declaration's discussion of the rights relationships between Topps, Microsoft, Smith & Tinker, IMR and the various sublicensors was also a bit muddled, and it suggests Topps holds computer game rights. It true that the ownership and nature of the rights isn't publicly clear, but conventional wisdom has been that the bulk of the electronic rights lie with Microsoft and/or S&T.

Don't forget Virtual World Entertainment.

[Bull]

People would probably by less sensitive to this if part of the moderation staff (Bull) hadn't stated, in the thread, that they were throwing stuff that included sexual harassment into the thread explicitly to derail it or get it shut down.

1) I'm no longer a moderator. Haven't been for a couple months now.
2) It wasn't sexual harassment. It was, arguably, sexually explicit however.
3) I myself got 2 official Warnings for those posts.
4) As I've been having an incredibly shitty week (Capped off by someone vandalizing my van and smashing out a window), I'll log off now before I earn a 3rd warning and get a couple days of suspension.

Bull

[otakusensei]

Otakusensi's quote of the legal document doesn't actually say they are the only members (though I admit to missing the word "the" in that legal statement). And the way that his (her?) question was phrased, I assumed it meant that he didn't understand the comment about "member", not that he was questioning the lack of other member/owner names. Since he hasn't responded to my post otherwise, I will continue to assume this until I hear otherwise.

At the time I assumed that the brief would contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I understand now that the "whole truth" isn't exactly a rock solid number of debtors or members. That's cool, I can see wanting to keep those numbers private and only releasing to the public that information that is pertinent, i.e. you need at least 12 debtors so you say you have 12 even if you have more because having more isn't important to the situation.

It's been implied that Coleman may have done some back handed things in the formation of the LLC and I was curious about that and what this brief said about it. I see now that it's effectively neutral as far as shedding light on that situation. Besides, the folks involved may not want to information to be public for perfectly legitimate reasons.

[LurkerOutThere]

You shouldn't use sarcasm on the internet, especially when talking about legal matters.

Why the frag not? Jesus, I can get people are upset, I can get some people even lost money or jobs in this affair. I'd like to think that when this all shakes out one way or another things will get back to normal around here and folks can go back to fighting about possesion mages or even sliding TN's, but this kind of rhetoric, this boggles the crap out of me. I can put myself in AH or Sensei's shoes or see why their upset. Fuchs I can't get your baseline and why you seem to come around to be nothing but pissy.

[Da9iel]

Fuchs, please do not attempt to do the job of the moderation staff. If you have a complaint, please report it to the moderation staff like everyone else does.

Back off Caine! He's not stepping on your toes, he's making a polite request. I, personally would rather have a polite request made to me than someone call The Man down on me.

Reading this thread makes me sad. I'm not sad about all the hot words and egos thrown around. I'm sad that the game I love is currently being controlled by someone who doesn't pay freelancers when he is perfectly able. I am sad that I would rather abandon Shadowrun entirely than support him in any way. If IMR keeps both the license and Loren L. Coleman, I'm out.

[Dread Moores]

I'm thinking the number 8 will be relevant soon.

[knasser]

Back off Caine! He's not stepping on your toes, he's making a polite request. I, personally would rather have a polite request made to me than someone call The Man down on me.

I'd say the same, more or less. If I'm having a big old conversation about Unicorns with Belly Button Rings (and I started the Unicorns!) in the thread, I'd sooner someone approached me directly than decided to report me for something. The former way is called communication. The latter way called annoying me. Maybe we can all keep roughly to the topic. This is the 32nd page of the seventh thread on this subject. It's hard enough to keep up with all the information and discussion without wading through two pages of requests for photos of Jennifer's belly ring.

IMO.

K.

[phillosopherp]

Well the thing that is true the thing that matters completely is this. An LLC (the legal Limited Liability Corporation no the Person) function on the fact that taxes, pay all of that is done by what is called "pass through" taxation. So you don't really have to worry about "much" ( by that statement I mean you have to worry less then if you are set up as a "C" Corp!) about what the company is holding as much as you need to worry about who is taking what. Now when that is the case it can be problematic for the members of the LLC if they feel that something that a person did with the till is taking more then the terms of the LLC, or that was more then their "share". So this of course has all be spelled out over time, but since people are back to asking about it that is kinda the run down.


So the statement of AH is right, we are now moving to the evidential hearings... so now there will be more talk back an forth between the parties talking about why one is more legally right then the other. You might get some talk about why they (IMR) don't actually have 12 creditors, of course that would be after the books for the company are requested as proof that it is or isn't the case, blah blah blah...

So in other words this has at least another 6 months of legal wrangling, which really comes to a halt for IMR if they don't get the license. Cause as soon as they don't, they have no other licenses (whether in house or licensed from others) and thus really lose the case based on the fact that they will have no income and thus will lose on a stand motion to settle based on the limited to no incoming cash flow, while if they get the license they really the parties on the other side will probably settle the dispute. This to me just sounds like a good legal maneuver by those still owed money. Its an end around to be the first inline should they lose the license, and who shouldn't make that move I know I would have!


EDIT: I just want to remind people that this is just my view I am in no way able to make legal advice nor am I truly qualified to do so

[BTFreeLancer]

Cause as soon as they don't, they have no other licenses (whether in house or licensed from others)

Except they do - not the Big Four - BT, SR, EP and CT - but they still have the casual games and Euro-licensed games. Have no idea regarding how well those lines do, but just wanted to make clear they do have other games, plus the possibility of shopping in-house stuff like Leviathans to interested parties.

[augmentin]

4) As I've been having an incredibly shitty week (Capped off by someone vandalizing my van and smashing out a window)

Sucks. Sorry, man.

[Rojo]

Except they do - not the Big Four - BT, SR, EP and CT - but they still have the casual games and Euro-licensed games. Have no idea regarding how well those lines do, but just wanted to make clear they do have other games, plus the possibility of shopping in-house stuff like Leviathans to interested parties.

Question? for anyone?

I thought Leviathan was also licensed to them?

IP like SR and BT but just from someone else who owns it.
Does anybody know?

Rojo

[the_dunner]

I thought Leviathan was also licensed to them?

From Monsters in the Sky, the Leviathans web site.

Leviathans is a trademark of InMediaRes Productions LLC.

It's developed in-house.

[Mesh]

1) I'm no longer a moderator. Haven't been for a couple months now.

Bull

How about somebody remove Bull from the Admin group so the issue with his moderator status doesn't keep coming up.

Mesh