COMING SOON IN 2012

[Mavrickindigo]

(Things about Carnival Island)

That's only the US manual. The JP manual gives a completely different story, where the island rose from the sea after Sonic 3 & Knuckles, and Knuckles ran off to investigate it. There was a bit more to it, I think, but I can't check, since the only place I can think of with info on the manual is down due to the blackouts.

To be fair, no matter how wrong the US manuals were, Archie was probably only supplied them back in the day, so that's all they had to work off of.

[Antarctic Deity]

I doubt they even read those, really.

[Julie-Su Fan]

Somehow I doubt if you can answer this, Mr. Penders, but this just popped into my head. Do you have any plans as to what you'll do with these current Lara-Su plans in the event you lose the copyright case? Will you still release the stories online as a "fan project" or something? Or will they be scrapped altogether and you'll just move on? Thanks for providing answers to my questions before, I appreciate it.

[Luger]

(Things about Carnival Island)

That's only the US manual. The JP manual gives a completely different story, where the island rose from the sea after Sonic 3 & Knuckles, and Knuckles ran off to investigate it. There was a bit more to it, I think, but I can't check, since the only place I can think of with info on the manual is down due to the blackouts.

To be fair, no matter how wrong the US manuals were, Archie was probably only supplied them back in the day, so that's all they had to work off of.

My thoughts exactly, but we could always ask Ken if they were given a Japanese manual too.

[Mavrickindigo]

Somehow I doubt if you can answer this, Mr. Penders, but this just popped into my head. Do you have any plans as to what you'll do with these current Lara-Su plans in the event you lose the copyright case? Will you still release the stories online as a "fan project" or something? Or will they be scrapped altogether and you'll just move on? Thanks for providing answers to my questions before, I appreciate it.

and please, don't brush off this question. It's hypothetical. Surely you're prepared to lose, just in case.

[Ken Penders]

and please, don't brush off this question. It's hypothetical. Surely you're prepared to lose, just in case.

To quote one of favorite philosophers, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario."

Lest it's really not clear, I'm not prepared to lose, especially after the week I've had in NYC these past few days, in which I came away with a small victory in the overall war, with the trial date vacated as further motions will be filed.

In case you hadn't noticed, Archie's owners are engaged in a death-match with each other, and I have my thoughts on that. Let's just say I believe one of the owners is being dragged unfairly through the mud. So that's a mess and a half all by itself.

As for my plans, I anticipate unveiling the next character sometime next week, to be followed by two more - possibly three - characters before the unveiling of the cover image.

I'll have more to say once I return home to the west coast later this weekend.

[Tylinos]

The trial being pushed back is a victory for you...why, exactly? I thought you wanted to prove your point in court?

And I hadn't noticed Archie owner infighting. Care to elaborate?

[Ken Penders]

@Tylinos:

The trial being pushed back is a victory for you...why, exactly? I thought you wanted to prove your point in court?

My small victory has nothing to do with the trial date being vacated. That was procedural as a result of what happened.

And I hadn't noticed Archie owner infighting. Care to elaborate?

Check out http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page ... e&id=36497 for details.

[Tylinos]

I'm guessing you're not allowed to say at the moment what else happened that led to the trial being pushed back, so I won't push on that.

Anyway, from the looks of that article, Goldwater doesn't like Silberkleit and is exaggerating a situation. It doesn't sound like he's lying, just using hyperbole to make it sound like she's a huge problem. Unless there's evidence he's completely making things up (and the article seems to show there's evidence for many of his claims), it isn't really dragging her name through the mud. For that to be the case, he'd have to be making at least something up.

Also, before you claim bias or that you never specified which owner you meant as an attempt to get around this, I saw Silberkleit's claims too, and doubt she's lying either. Neither of them are dragging each other's name through the mud, as it seems neither of them are making things up. If anything, it ends up making you looking like you're dragging one or both of their names through the mud by accusing them of doing so, especially when it also gives the impression that you only brought it up to show Archie staff in a poor light.

[jameygamer]

@Tylinos:

The trial being pushed back is a victory for you...why, exactly? I thought you wanted to prove your point in court?

My small victory has nothing to do with the trial date being vacated. That was procedural as a result of what happened.

And I hadn't noticed Archie owner infighting. Care to elaborate?

Check out http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page ... e&id=36497 for details.

Okay, I'd like to know in light of the comment from Tylinos. Which one, Goldwater or Silberkleit, do you feel is being dragged through the mud?

[Ken Penders]

@Tylinos and jameygamer:

Okay, I'd like to know in light of the comment from Tylinos. Which one, Goldwater or Silberkleit, do you feel is being dragged through the mud?

Based upon research I've conducted over the past several days that had nothing to do with Goldwater v Silberkleit, the topic still couldn't be avoided no matter where I turned. The overall conclusion I came away with was that Nancy is the one getting the raw end of bad press.

[Tylinos]

That's, of course, assuming the proported problems she's said to have caused never happened. It's not really the raw end of bad press if it's true. The fact that the first injunction against her was successful shows that there's evidence she's been causing problems. So unless the allegations of her ignoring the original court order are lies, (which seems very unlikely; they wouldn't be stupid enough to sue over that without any evidence) I find it a bit hard to sympathize with her even if Goldwater's exaggerating how big of a deal the problems are. (And if he is exaggerating how big of a deal the problems are, that makes this situation less of a problem anyway.)

[Ken Penders]

@Tylinos:

The fact that the first injunction against her was successful shows that there's evidence she's been causing problems.

The reason there is now a new lawsuit is that the injunction wasn't successful. Go back and read the documents and you'll discover the Judge's hands were tied by the fact that Nancy Silberkleit owns 50% of the company, whereas Jon Goldwater only owns 25% of the company. It is due to the fact that the estate of the late Rchard Goldwater owns 25% of the company and Jon has the proxy for those shares gives him claim to represent 50% of the company.

Neither side has a majority, which has led some in the press to speculate some pretty dire scenarios concerning the fate of the company.

The fact is I know the players better than you do. You asked which side I believed and I responded. There is no debating further over who I believe is telling the truth. It's like you're trying to prove me wrong for believing what I do when I have facts that only those involved have access to in which support my beliefs.

[Tylinos]

The reason there is now a new lawsuit is that the injunction wasn't successful.

So, all of the articles I've seen reporting on it, including the one you linked, state that the injunction was successful because...?

(EDIT: In fact, the documents linked in that article specify on Page 4 that it was successful as well. I read the entire document and didn't see anything overturning it. Unless by wasn't successful you mean the injunction didn't stop her, in which case that wasn't what I was referring to.)

You asked which side I believed and I responded. There is no debating further over who I believe is telling the truth. It's like you're trying to prove me wrong for believing what I do when I have facts that only those involved have access to in which support my beliefs.

...What? If it came off that way, that isn't what I meant. I was just showing the reasoning for why I personally disagree with that assessment, not trying to prove your opinion wrong with my opinion. I thought I made that clear enough, and I apologize if I didn't.

[Mavrickindigo]

To quote one of favorite philosophers, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario."

Lest it's really not clear, I'm not prepared to lose, especially after the week I've had in NYC these past few days, in which I came away with a small victory in the overall war, with the trial date vacated as further motions will be filed.

Yes, but to believe in a "no-lose" scenario is not the same, and is, in fact, quite arrogant. There's always a possibility that you might lose. Have you heard the saying "don't count your chickens before they're hatched?"

Besides the questions asking what you'd do if you did lose is hypothetical, have you given that scenario, no matter how likely or not, any thought at all?

[jameygamer]

@Tylinos:

The fact that the first injunction against her was successful shows that there's evidence she's been causing problems.

The reason there is now a new lawsuit is that the injunction wasn't successful. Go back and read the documents and you'll discover the Judge's hands were tied by the fact that Nancy Silberkleit owns 50% of the company, whereas Jon Goldwater only owns 25% of the company. It is due to the fact that the estate of the late Rchard Goldwater owns 25% of the company and Jon has the proxy for those shares gives him claim to represent 50% of the company.

Neither side has a majority, which has led some in the press to speculate some pretty dire scenarios concerning the fate of the company.

The fact is I know the players better than you do. You asked which side I believed and I responded. There is no debating further over who I believe is telling the truth. It's like you're trying to prove me wrong for believing what I do when I have facts that only those involved have access to in which support my beliefs.

So, what happens with your case with Archie if this little CEO feud between Goldwater and Silberkleit causes the publisher to cave in on itself? What does that do to the Sonic comic, your claims to the characters in it, and Sega's license?

[Ken Penders]

@Tylinos:

So, all of the articles I've seen reporting on it, including the one you linked, state that the injunction was successful because...?

It doesn't matter what the articles say, because they aren't reporting all the details. Jon Goldwater owns only 25% of the company, and has the voting proxy of the 25% owned by the estate of his late half-brother Richard. Nancy Silberkleit, on the other hand, fully owns 50% of the company. There's no way a Judge can stop her from doing whatever she wants with her own property, including a company that is legally half hers. BTW, she now has a lawsuit filed against Jon, so this is really serious business here.

Furthermore, there were witnesses to the codicil in Michael Silberkleit's will which he had drawn up specifically to bequeath Nancy his share of the company. Trust me, I know a lot more about this than you do.

@Mavrickindigo:

There's always a possibility that you might lose. Have you heard the saying "don't count your chickens before they're hatched?"

Well, yeah, of course. But if one starts out with the attitude that one could lose, one will lose. On the other hand, if one does their homework, practices every day and accepts the consequences of one's actions, then one definitely has a chance of succeeding.

When one is in the right, as I believe I am in this case, then I have no choice but to stay the course and fight for what's rightfully mine.

And no, I haven't given any thought to what happens if I lose. So far, everything that's happened, the details of which most are not aware of, only reinforces my belief I will be vindicated in the end.

@jameygamer:

So, what happens with your case with Archie if this little CEO feud between Goldwater and Silberkleit causes the publisher to cave in on itself? What does that do to the Sonic comic, your claims to the characters in it, and Sega's license?

Should Goldwater v Silberkleit or Silberkleit v Goldwater result in the dissolution of the company, at the very least I expect to come out with a clear claim to my copyrights. With regards to the Sonic comic itself, I would anticipate most if not all creators who worked on the book asserting their ownership to the material they created, and I would anticipate the chance to continue the book with Sega under better terms than they currently have with Archie. Seriously.

[Mavrickindigo]

And no, I haven't given any thought to what happens if I lose. So far, everything that's happened, the details of which most are not aware of, only reinforces my belief I will be vindicated in the end.

So that answers that question, but now that we've come up with it, can you answer us the original question: If, for some reason, you do lose, will you provide this content in some free manner, or drop it and work on other projects?

[Tylinos]

So, all of the articles I've seen reporting on it, including the one you linked, state that the injunction was successful because...?

It doesn't matter what the articles say, because they aren't reporting all the details.

Jon Goldwater owns only 25% of the company, and has the voting proxy of the 25% owned by the estate of his late half-brother Richard. Nancy Silberkleit, on the other hand, fully owns 50% of the company. There's no way a Judge can stop her from doing whatever she wants with her own property, including a company that is legally half hers.

Hang on, what? You tell me to go back and read the documents to see that the injunction was unsuccessful, I go back and read them and see they were successful, and you say...what? That the documents you told me to read aren't telling the truth because you personally believe the judge's decision is somehow invalid? Please tell me that isn't what you're saying here.

Furthermore, there were witnesses to the codicil in Michael Silberkleit's will which he had drawn up specifically to bequeath Nancy his share of the company. Trust me, I know a lot more about this than you do.

...Uh, I never said there weren't. I'd be much more surprised if there wasn't at least one witness to a will signing. I only said that the documents you yourself told me to read said that the injunction was successful because the judge approved it. What are you going on about?

Well, yeah, of course. But if one starts out with the attitude that one could lose, one will lose. On the other hand, if one does their homework, practices every day and accepts the consequences of one's actions, then one definitely has a chance of succeeding.

When one is in the right, as I believe I am in this case, then I have no choice but to stay the course and fight for what's rightfully mine.

That's honestly a pretty nice, positive way to look at it. Good for you.

Should Goldwater v Silberkleit or Silberkleit v Goldwater result in the dissolution of the company, at the very least I expect to come out with a clear claim to my copyrights.

Well, I'd say it'd be likely the copyright claim battle would just be uptaken by Sega, since they're the ones with the actual claim to the characters, with Archie just acting as a go-between in this case. You already said in the past that it would be Sega and not Archie, so by your own admission there wouldn't be a clear claim if Archie folded.

With regards to the Sonic comic itself, I would anticipate most if not all creators who worked on the book asserting their ownership to the material they created...

...No. First off, if others are going to assert ownership, why wouldn't they just do it now? Maybe some of them would wait, yes, but that brings me to the second thing: There's no way all creators would, partially because at least some of them simply won't care either way, and partially because at the very least one has stated that he has a work-for-hire contract, if not more of them, which would mean they'd have no claim to begin with. (And no, I'm not saying all of them have a contract like that, just that at least one does, and likely more, meaning not all would have a claim.)

...and I would anticipate the chance to continue the book with Sega under better terms than they currently have with Archie. Seriously.

...I somehow really doubt that will happen.

[Ken Penders]

@Mavrickindigo:

If, for some reason, you do lose, will you provide this content in some free manner, or drop it and work on other projects?

The very fact that I'm working on THE LARA-SU CHRONICLES means I anticipate being successful in my endeavors. I don't do things halfway, as people who have watched me work on other projects such as THE REPUBLIC and THE LOST ONES are well aware.

To answer your question in a manner you would find satisfactory would be counterproductive on so many levels and interpreted by many as an acknowledgement that my case isn't as solid as I claim it is. If you were in my shoes, with the United States Government recognizing you officially own your work, and had taken the measures I had to establish the work belonged to you, you would also not be answering any other way.

@Tylinos:

You tell me to go back and read the documents to see that the injunction was unsuccessful, I go back and read them and see they were successful, and you say...what? That the documents you told me to read aren't telling the truth because you personally believe the judge's decision is somehow invalid?

We may be talking at cross-purposes again. Yes, there was an injunction. No, it wasn't successful. As proof, Jon Goldwater filed his latest lawsuit as a result of its lack of success. Even the Judge in the first case admitted his hands were tied in limiting what Nancy could do with a company in which she owns half of everything.

Well, I'd say it'd be likely the copyright claim battle would just be uptaken by Sega, since they're the ones with the actual claim to the characters, with Archie just acting as a go-between in this case. You already said in the past that it would be Sega and not Archie, so by your own admission there wouldn't be a clear claim if Archie folded.

The problem with your analysis is the same as everyone else's on this point. If I haven't signed any work-for-hire documents, which I have acknowledged to the Judge I haven't, then Archie has no claim to any of my work. Not the characters. Not the concepts. Not the stories. And if they have no claim, then Sega has even less of a claim, because there are no documents between me and Sega, nor does Archie have any of my copyrights to transfer to Sega. The burden of proof would be on Sega to establish they own my work, and under our legal system, given what I know, the chances of that are zero without Archie winning the case against me.

First off, if others are going to assert ownership, why wouldn't they just do it now?

Several creators have already taken steps to establish their ownership of their material. Beyond that, I really don't wish to comment and risk jeopardizing anyone else's claims. Which goes to your last comment in which you expressed great doubt over my last statement. Business tends to make for strange bedfellows, and a library such as the SONIC series is to valuable to just lie dormant. You'll just have to wait and watch to see how things play out.

[Tylinos]

We may be talking at cross-purposes again. Yes, there was an injunction. No, it wasn't successful. As proof, Jon Goldwater filed his latest lawsuit as a result of its lack of success. Even the Judge in the first case admitted his hands were tied in limiting what Nancy could do with a company in which she owns half of everything.

Okay, then let's clear something up here so there's absolutely no confusion between us. Do you mean it wasn't successful in that it wasn't passed by the judge, or that it wasn't successful in that it passed but didn't do what Goldwater wanted it to?

The problem with your analysis is the same as everyone else's on this point. If I haven't signed any work-for-hire documents, which I have acknowledged to the Judge I haven't, then Archie has no claim to any of my work. Not the characters. Not the concepts. Not the stories. And if they have no claim, then Sega has even less of a claim, because there are no documents between me and Sega, nor does Archie have any of my copyrights to transfer to Sega. The burden of proof would be on Sega to establish they own my work, and under our legal system, given what I know, the chances of that are zero without Archie winning the case against me.

Yes, the burden of proof would probably be on Archie or Sega. If I recall, as long as this wasn't mistaken information, Archie did present documents that they need to prove are authentic, apparently. Either they're authentic and Archie wins the case (Memory of 15 year old events generally isn't as reliable as written word), or they're fake and Archie is in far more trouble than of just losing the case, since forging documents like that would be illegal. The reason a lot of people believe you'll lose is because a lot of us feel they're at least not stupid enough to forge documents like that. But there's also that old claim of BobR's that Archie simply didn't carry out every single detail of the contract, so it may rely on that instead. (But that point may be moot, because I don't really know why Bob would claim that if you claim you never signed anything.)

But that's all another reason why many people have been against you in this: If you were to win, it would be through what amounts to exploiting loopholes.

(EDIT: Also, you're really going on about how well you know the legal system? Sorry, it just personally kind of bugs me when you've criticized people in the past for talking about the law without being trained lawyers.)

Several creators have already taken steps to establish their ownership of their material. Beyond that, I really don't wish to comment and risk jeopardizing anyone else's claims.

Well, I meant apart from the ones you've previously noted as speaking up.

Which goes to your last comment in which you expressed great doubt over my last statement. Business tends to make for strange bedfellows, and a library such as the SONIC series is to valuable to just lie dormant. You'll just have to wait and watch to see how things play out.

Yes, I agree. It is too valuable to lie dormant. But the idea Sega would go to you for it? Very, very unlikely.

[Antarctic Deity]

With regards to the Sonic comic itself, I would anticipate most if not all creators who worked on the book asserting their ownership to the material they created, and I would anticipate the chance to continue the book with Sega under better terms than they currently have with Archie. Seriously.

Well that's just the craziest crazy I've heard this year. You don't... you CAN'T...really? You think they'd come to you on better terms than Archie after pulling this?

[Ken Penders]

@Antarctic Diety:

You think they'd come to you on better terms than Archie after pulling this?

I didn't say Sega would come to me. I said I would offer better terms than Archie. That's a different ballgame than what you're thinking.

@Tylinos:

that it wasn't successful in that it passed but didn't do what Goldwater wanted it to?

Exactly.

But there's also that old claim of BobR's that Archie simply didn't carry out every single detail of the contract, so it may rely on that instead. (But that point may be moot, because I don't really know why Bob would claim that if you claim you never signed anything.

Archie does carry the burden of proof of showing those documents are authentic. My lawyers and I have plenty of reasons to believe that what they have are anything but. However, and this is where Bob comes from, even if by some miracle of law that even copies of documents were considered acceptable in a court of law, there are numerous problems with the language of the documents, as well as blank spaces, lack of cross-outs and other problems that render the documents both invalid and unenforceable.

If you were to win, it would be through what amounts to exploiting loopholes.

So let me get this straight: it's okay if companies use loopholes to take advantage of people, but not okay in the reverse? And who says I'm taking advantage of loopholes? According to the law, I am legally entitled to file for my Copyrights and protect my work. Both Archie and Sega had plenty of opportunities to speak up and state their objections to my filings before they were officially registered. In fact, both companies were notified by the Copyright Office that I was filing for my Copyrights and given 30 days to respond. Neither company did. There is a documented record of all of these actions, including the letters sent to both Archie and Sega. If they actually had documents that established what I did was work-for-hire, why didn't they present these documents at that time? I have yet to meet a person who has any valid response to that question.

[Antarctic Deity]

I have GOT to hear these better terms, this is hilarious. I'm guessing a promise not to sue is included?

[Tylinos]

I didn't say Sega would come to me. I said I would offer better terms than Archie.

...And you think they'd accept? Really?

that it wasn't successful in that it passed but didn't do what Goldwater wanted it to?

Exactly.

Then why did you even bring it up to begin with?

Also, somewhat relevant:
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/20 ... or-archie/

Even though "There's no way a Judge can stop her from doing whatever she wants with her own property, including a company that is legally half hers," one just did completely.

Archie does carry the burden of proof of showing those documents are authentic. My lawyers and I have plenty of reasons to believe that what they have are anything but. However, and this is where Bob comes from, even if by some miracle of law that even copies of documents were considered acceptable in a court of law, there are numerous problems with the language of the documents, as well as blank spaces, lack of cross-outs and other problems that render the documents both invalid and unenforceable.

As these documents are, as far as I know, unavailable for public viewing, I can only really comment on the one point that I know about, which is the "Archie/Licensor" one, which (if I recall) is to state if the properties would go to Archie or the Licensor (In this case, Sega). Let's just work for the moment on the hypothetical assumption that the documents are authentic. (Just bear with me on this) If that was the case, in this particular instance you'd have signed a document agreeing that it goes to either Archie or Sega, in which case the problem would be easily solved by Archie and Sega getting together and agreeing "Yeah, it goes to Sega." It doesn't take much logic on that.

But that's the only one I know about, so I can't really judge the rest.

So let me get this straight: it's okay if companies use loopholes to take advantage of people, but not okay in the reverse?

Uh, what? I never said that.

And who says I'm taking advantage of loopholes?

I said amounts to. I didn't mean exact loopholes. It was a poorly worded simile.

According to the law, I am legally entitled to file for my Copyrights and protect my work. Both Archie and Sega had plenty of opportunities to speak up and state their objections to my filings before they were officially registered. In fact, both companies were notified by the Copyright Office that I was filing for my Copyrights and given 30 days to respond. Neither company did. There is a documented record of all of these actions, including the letters sent to both Archie and Sega. If they actually had documents that established what I did was work-for-hire, why didn't they present these documents at that time? I have yet to meet a person who has any valid response to that question.

Of course you haven't; We aren't Sega/Archie. We don't know what was going through the minds of whoever these things were delegated to. There could have been any number of reasons, from miscommunication to laziness to pure incompetence.