-
Thanks for visiting the Kaleidescape Owners' Forum
This forum is for the community of Kaleidescape owners, and others interested in learning about the system, equipment, services, and the company itself.It is run by a group of enthusiastic Kaleidescape owners and dealers purely as a service to this community.
This board is not affiliated in any way with Kaleidescape, Inc.
For official technical support, product information, or customer service, please visit www.kaleidescape.com -
You are currently in "Guest" mode and not logged in with a registered account.
The forum is free to use and most of the forum can be used by guests who are not registered....
... but we strongly encourage you to register for a full account. There is no cost to register for a full account.
Benefits of registering for a full account:
- Participate in the discussions! You must have a registered account to make posts on the forums. You will be able to start your own thread on a topic or question, or you can reply to other threads/discussions.
- Use the "Conversation" feature (known as "private messaging" on other forums) to communicate directly with any of the other users here.
- Access the Files area. The "resources" area of the forum contains many "Favorite Scene" and Script files that can dramatically increase the enjoyment of your Kaleidescape system. Go directly to great scenes in your favorite movies, created by other owners, and add automation to playback of your system with Scripts.
- You won't see this annoying notice at the top of every screen!😊
Kaleidescape Wins Lawsuit!!
- Thread starter cinelife
- Start date
This is great news. Do you know if the judge ruled on KScape's counterclaim for damages against the DVD CCA?
Also do you know if the judge issued a written opinion? Besides being a Kscape owner, I am also an attorney and would be very interested in actually reading the judge's opinion.
Scott
Also do you know if the judge issued a written opinion? Besides being a Kscape owner, I am also an attorney and would be very interested in actually reading the judge's opinion.
Scott
cinelife
Administrator
Staff member
Forum Administrator
Moderator
⭐️⭐️PATRON⭐️⭐️
Authorized Kaleidescape Dealer
Hi Scott,
Sorry, I do not have the particulars. We dealers received word by phone and e-mail today (from the CEO) thanking everyone for the support during this period. There was no mention of the counterclaim. That may be a "trade-off" item going forward should there be an appeal (only my opinion). I'm an attorney as well, but have been focusing more on my hobbies, and an A/V business (I've intentionally priced myself out of trial work!!
)You may find more info online.
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
Thanks for the reply. While I am still a practicing attorney (represent businesses in Pennsylvania state tax matters), if/when I decide to retire, I would probably do something in the A/V industry as that is a real love of mine.
I haven't found the opinion online yet, but hopefully it will be available soon or may end up on the KScape site.
Scott
Thanks for the reply. While I am still a practicing attorney (represent businesses in Pennsylvania state tax matters), if/when I decide to retire, I would probably do something in the A/V industry as that is a real love of mine.
I haven't found the opinion online yet, but hopefully it will be available soon or may end up on the KScape site.
Scott
Are these rulings usually part of the public record? I too would love to find it.
Oh and WAY TO STICK TO YOUR GUNS GUYS!!!!!
eetimes.com has had the best coverage over the past few weeks and Julie Jacobson on CEPRO.com has also been following the case pretty closely. EETimes has a good summary article today.
My rep told me today that the countersuit is ongoing and will continue.
Oh and WAY TO STICK TO YOUR GUNS GUYS!!!!!
eetimes.com has had the best coverage over the past few weeks and Julie Jacobson on CEPRO.com has also been following the case pretty closely. EETimes has a good summary article today.
My rep told me today that the countersuit is ongoing and will continue.
That's incredible news for the company, for all of us who love the products, but more importantly for consumers in general. A huge congratulations to Kaleidescape... I know that sales, strong as they are, have been curtailed by consumers fearful that this lawsuit could have stopped the company. Should make for a VERY nice Q2 & Q3 for Kaleidescape (and it's dealers!).
Nice editorial
http://www.cepro.com/news/editorial/18137.html
From the brief email exchange I have had with Mr. Malcolm and seeing him represent his product on a few web videos I have say my opinion of him is a "straight shooter" and not someone who would spend all the development money he must have spent on just developing the system and then sadly the lawsuit unless he had a really good position. My feeling all along has been in line with what the author of that article above hints at- that the CCA's consumer electronics members woke up after the license was granted and realized they might have given away a valuable asset to a new comer instead of keeping it in the family. As dvd sales decline and players are cheaper than dirt and people have massive libraries, there is a real need for this. The CE companies could use servers as a new place to grab some profits. But not with a new comer who has probably patented and trademarked parts of the system.... It looks to me like the big boys wanting to squash the little guy. And I say- hooray for the little guy. (in a relative sense of course). Anyway, thats my 2 cents and I am happy for all the people at Kaleidescape and glad they stuck to their guns. I also would like to read the opinion to see what I think of any appeal that might come out of it. If anyone finds it please let me know. (also an attorney who is not practicing)
best regards,
Jerry
http://www.cepro.com/news/editorial/18137.html
From the brief email exchange I have had with Mr. Malcolm and seeing him represent his product on a few web videos I have say my opinion of him is a "straight shooter" and not someone who would spend all the development money he must have spent on just developing the system and then sadly the lawsuit unless he had a really good position. My feeling all along has been in line with what the author of that article above hints at- that the CCA's consumer electronics members woke up after the license was granted and realized they might have given away a valuable asset to a new comer instead of keeping it in the family. As dvd sales decline and players are cheaper than dirt and people have massive libraries, there is a real need for this. The CE companies could use servers as a new place to grab some profits. But not with a new comer who has probably patented and trademarked parts of the system.... It looks to me like the big boys wanting to squash the little guy. And I say- hooray for the little guy. (in a relative sense of course). Anyway, thats my 2 cents and I am happy for all the people at Kaleidescape and glad they stuck to their guns. I also would like to read the opinion to see what I think of any appeal that might come out of it. If anyone finds it please let me know. (also an attorney who is not practicing)
best regards,
Jerry
Zok
Active member
Judge's decision
http://www.kaleidescape.com/company/pr/PR-20070329-DVDCCA.html
Direct link to transcript:
http://www.kaleidescape.com/files/legal/DVDCCA-vs-Kaleidescape-Judge-Decision.txt
I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.
This press release on the Kaleidescape web site contains a link to the transcript of the final day's proceedings where Judge Nichols gives his decision orally:
http://www.kaleidescape.com/company/pr/PR-20070329-DVDCCA.html
Direct link to transcript:
http://www.kaleidescape.com/files/legal/DVDCCA-vs-Kaleidescape-Judge-Decision.txt
I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.
First, that Judge sure likes to explain things, doesn't he? Actually, I learnt quite a few things about contract law from reading his summary. While long, it’s pretty easy to read.
Pretty much as I would have expected, the decision to sue Kaleidescape was made by lawyers, not the actual DVD CCA board - in particular, no one on the board had bothered to read the contract in question either when it was drafted, or at the time to sue was made. That's pretty pathetic, actually, but not surprising. Most boards are rubber stamps for whoever it is that does anything, and in this case, the only people that seem to do anything at the DVD CCA are lawyers.
It was pretty funny reading how the Judge put it - he built up all the people on the DVD CCA board as being very impressive, knowledgeable, accomplished - and then tore them down with the single sentence - "He didn't read the contract either".
Then again, the defense witnesses weren't too swift either. A Kaleidescape founder, Mr. Cheena Srinivasan, testified in deposition that he had no reason to doubt that the general specifications were part of the technical specifications. This is the exact point that the judge ruled, that indeed the general specs WERE NOT part of the technical specs, and on that point, ruled in Kaleidescape's favor. The defense witness was simply wrong, and wrong in a way that would harm Kaleidescape, but the Judge (correctly) ruled that Mr. Srinivasan didn't know his ass form a hole in the ground on this issue.
As the Judge put it, lots of witnesses gave "opinions" about things, none of which was really relevant, nor in some cases, even factually correct, about what the suit was about which was a CONTRACT dispute.
I just know the Judge went away wondering how so many VPs, CEOs, and PhDs could be so dumb about something so simple. It's just a contract! Read it, understand what it says! Sheesh.
Other misc. things:
"DVD CCA was described as a corporation that has officers and no employees.". Would you entrust such an organization with anything?
Ha! I love it! I just read the part where the Judge points out that the signed contract has the boilerplate "Entire Contract" clause that specifically disallows any other oral, or other contract to supersede what has been signed here. I've seen that boilerplate so often - it's interesting seeing it have teeth.
The way that the DVD CCA "works" - don't talk to us (since we have no employees anyways), just sign the contract - worked against themselves. Almost by definition, what was written in the contract had to be the assumed true intent of the DVD CCA since there was no other communication with the DVD CCA. So the Judge closed the door on the potential out for the DVD CCA that while the contract said A, their intention was B.
Great quotes:
The contract in question "was a product created by a committee of lawyers."
"On occasion as a solo practitioner it would bring joy to my heart when there were 27 on the other side. I might have a chance winding my little dinghy through the process because at least I knew what was in my mind."
"But the plaintiff had every advantage, the resources of the whole industry ... And in a way, it's as if everybody is responsible, but nobody is responsible."
Another interesting finding. The DVD CCA stated that if they lost this suit, their entire industry would suffer "irreparable harm". Well, the Judge basically didn't buy that. "And I have not been satisfied that there is irreparable harm or at this point any demonstrated harm.". Good for him - he saw through the DVD CCA's fear mongering. He goes on "there is nothing that I heard that suggests that the public interest is adversely affected by honoring this contract as interpreted. And I've really heard nothing here that would equate in this trial the conduct of Kaleidescape and its agents and employees with rogues or pirates."
Finally, apparently, in testimony, there were 4 cases where customers did engage in some sort of piracy. His take on that, "I find and believe that the testimony concerning the four interactions over the several years with dealers and the one interaction with Mr. Collens shows to me that the company, far from attempting to do anything bad, seems to have internal procedures to carry out what they say they're trying to do, which is to proceed in an entirely compliant, lawful, and ethical way. And it suggests to me that there being only four of those documented situations, that things are not as dire as the plaintiff opines.”
Pretty much as I would have expected, the decision to sue Kaleidescape was made by lawyers, not the actual DVD CCA board - in particular, no one on the board had bothered to read the contract in question either when it was drafted, or at the time to sue was made. That's pretty pathetic, actually, but not surprising. Most boards are rubber stamps for whoever it is that does anything, and in this case, the only people that seem to do anything at the DVD CCA are lawyers.
It was pretty funny reading how the Judge put it - he built up all the people on the DVD CCA board as being very impressive, knowledgeable, accomplished - and then tore them down with the single sentence - "He didn't read the contract either".
Then again, the defense witnesses weren't too swift either. A Kaleidescape founder, Mr. Cheena Srinivasan, testified in deposition that he had no reason to doubt that the general specifications were part of the technical specifications. This is the exact point that the judge ruled, that indeed the general specs WERE NOT part of the technical specs, and on that point, ruled in Kaleidescape's favor. The defense witness was simply wrong, and wrong in a way that would harm Kaleidescape, but the Judge (correctly) ruled that Mr. Srinivasan didn't know his ass form a hole in the ground on this issue.
As the Judge put it, lots of witnesses gave "opinions" about things, none of which was really relevant, nor in some cases, even factually correct, about what the suit was about which was a CONTRACT dispute.
I just know the Judge went away wondering how so many VPs, CEOs, and PhDs could be so dumb about something so simple. It's just a contract! Read it, understand what it says! Sheesh.
Other misc. things:
"DVD CCA was described as a corporation that has officers and no employees.". Would you entrust such an organization with anything?
Ha! I love it! I just read the part where the Judge points out that the signed contract has the boilerplate "Entire Contract" clause that specifically disallows any other oral, or other contract to supersede what has been signed here. I've seen that boilerplate so often - it's interesting seeing it have teeth.
The way that the DVD CCA "works" - don't talk to us (since we have no employees anyways), just sign the contract - worked against themselves. Almost by definition, what was written in the contract had to be the assumed true intent of the DVD CCA since there was no other communication with the DVD CCA. So the Judge closed the door on the potential out for the DVD CCA that while the contract said A, their intention was B.
Great quotes:
The contract in question "was a product created by a committee of lawyers."
"On occasion as a solo practitioner it would bring joy to my heart when there were 27 on the other side. I might have a chance winding my little dinghy through the process because at least I knew what was in my mind."
"But the plaintiff had every advantage, the resources of the whole industry ... And in a way, it's as if everybody is responsible, but nobody is responsible."
Another interesting finding. The DVD CCA stated that if they lost this suit, their entire industry would suffer "irreparable harm". Well, the Judge basically didn't buy that. "And I have not been satisfied that there is irreparable harm or at this point any demonstrated harm.". Good for him - he saw through the DVD CCA's fear mongering. He goes on "there is nothing that I heard that suggests that the public interest is adversely affected by honoring this contract as interpreted. And I've really heard nothing here that would equate in this trial the conduct of Kaleidescape and its agents and employees with rogues or pirates."
Finally, apparently, in testimony, there were 4 cases where customers did engage in some sort of piracy. His take on that, "I find and believe that the testimony concerning the four interactions over the several years with dealers and the one interaction with Mr. Collens shows to me that the company, far from attempting to do anything bad, seems to have internal procedures to carry out what they say they're trying to do, which is to proceed in an entirely compliant, lawful, and ethical way. And it suggests to me that there being only four of those documented situations, that things are not as dire as the plaintiff opines.”
Thanks for the links and welcome!
I tried to read it, but I do not have the time to dedicate to this lengthy transcript. I was expecting to read a dry judicial opinion, but instead its truly a transcript. The part where the judge says she is siding with the Kaleidescape trial brief and that the contract does not include the extra stuff the DVD CCA wanted to include as it was after the fact seem to carry the day. Unless there is a horrible error in terms of what was let in as a fact or error of law, I see an appeal as having very low odds of success. Again, I did not fully read it. Interesting none the less and congrats to Kaleidescape for standing its ground.
best regards,
Jerry
I tried to read it, but I do not have the time to dedicate to this lengthy transcript. I was expecting to read a dry judicial opinion, but instead its truly a transcript. The part where the judge says she is siding with the Kaleidescape trial brief and that the contract does not include the extra stuff the DVD CCA wanted to include as it was after the fact seem to carry the day. Unless there is a horrible error in terms of what was let in as a fact or error of law, I see an appeal as having very low odds of success. Again, I did not fully read it. Interesting none the less and congrats to Kaleidescape for standing its ground.
best regards,
Jerry
cinelife
Administrator
Staff member
Forum Administrator
Moderator
⭐️⭐️PATRON⭐️⭐️
Authorized Kaleidescape Dealer
Thanks for the comments. There are certainly many lawyer forum members, myself and JerryL included, that believed K would win this from the beginning (but hey, you never really know until the decision is handed down). I guess we'll see if the DVD-CCA wants to throw away more $ on an appeal, but based on the Judges opinion I would think they would be smart enough to just move on, but then again.....
Jim
Jim
Quick point of clarification? Is the judge in this case a male or female? The judges name is: LESLIE C. NICHOLS. This only matters in the case of our writing "he" or "she". Btw- ptrubey- enjoyed reading your comments.
The reason almost no one really knew what the contract stated, etc is that although you are right: its just a document- written in English- many people just throw up their hands and ask the lawyers what it "means" because its "goobledy gook". Its not- a contract just requires some time to read. The people here are probably too busy to give it the time. The fact that they did not have a great mastery of the facts shows they were either not coached or not well coached. Depending on what you think about coaching witnesses that is either a good or bad thing. Like you said- it was no matter as the person whose opinion on the legal questions at hand is the judges and it seems The Honorable Leslie C. Nichols got it right.
The reason almost no one really knew what the contract stated, etc is that although you are right: its just a document- written in English- many people just throw up their hands and ask the lawyers what it "means" because its "goobledy gook". Its not- a contract just requires some time to read. The people here are probably too busy to give it the time. The fact that they did not have a great mastery of the facts shows they were either not coached or not well coached. Depending on what you think about coaching witnesses that is either a good or bad thing. Like you said- it was no matter as the person whose opinion on the legal questions at hand is the judges and it seems The Honorable Leslie C. Nichols got it right.
Zok
Active member
I have yet to see a contract that any intelligent person couldn't understand. Yes, unless you've read a lot of similar contracts, the first time you read one, it is slow going. But there is no excuse for DVD CCA board members to not have read it at some point in time. After all, it seems that the sole, and only, thing that the DVD CCA does is to get licensees to sign a contract.
Anyways, there is another point to make here. While lawyers are more efficient in reading and writing contracts, they aren't the ones who are the subject experts. The DVD CCA board members, and especially the various technical folks, are the ones that know the implications of the words. So blindly relying on the advice of counsel is generally a bad idea - you gotta use your brain too!
Anyways, there is another point to make here. While lawyers are more efficient in reading and writing contracts, they aren't the ones who are the subject experts. The DVD CCA board members, and especially the various technical folks, are the ones that know the implications of the words. So blindly relying on the advice of counsel is generally a bad idea - you gotta use your brain too!
cinelife
Administrator
Staff member
Forum Administrator
Moderator
⭐️⭐️PATRON⭐️⭐️
Authorized Kaleidescape Dealer
Another article summarizing the trial with some background
An interesting read:
http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=121884
An interesting read:
http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=121884
Yes, very interesting read. Fills in a lot of blanks. It is fairly obvious to me that the DVD CCA is incompetant and is not helping the industry at all, notwithstanding Bell's assertions. Exactly in the same way that the music industry completely missed their customer's needs, and caused themselves large financial harm, the movie industry is heading there too. Hopefully, someone with some business sense will engage the new media distribution industry rather than pretend it doesn't exist. But I'm not holding my breath.