Ken Penders wrote:
Tylinos wrote: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.
Ken Penders wrote: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?
Ken Penders wrote: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.
Ken Penders wrote: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.
Ken Penders wrote: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.)
Ken Penders wrote:...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.