Actually the High Court of Australia have affirmed in relevant copyright cases (Nintendo v Centronics for one) it does not need to be an exact copy to give rise to infringement.

In the Centronics case, the company manufactured a chip which contained an IC that was found to be substantially similar to the Nintendo IC. This substantial similarity test against the Nintendo IC was sufficient to constitute a breach of the Circuit Layouts Act and Nintendo's IP rights.

Accordingly injunctive relief and damages including an account of profits plus costs were awarded to Nintendo. Centronics and its owner directors subsequently declared bankruptcy after being unable to service the judgement.

Wayne was also one of the few people who openly refused to be servile to the incompetent leadership of AA, unlike a lot of other fellow Victorians who basically sold themselves out because they are openly spineless.

That fact alone makes him someone who can be counted on as reliable and not only willing to stand by their principles but unwilling to be bribed or threatened into silence.

Not to mention the fact he was able to get proper licensed IJ decals (with copyright text) with the direct approval of George Lucas which made a pleasant change from all the inkjet junk that was out there at the time.

Then you need to be able to learn to differentiate between formal legal correspondence originating from a solicitor (attorney to use the US vernacular) whilst they are on the clock and informal obiter made on an internet forum in the form of a passing statement made to give informal notice of intent before the formalities begin.

Trademarks have an automatic expiry date of 10 years from the filing date in Australia unless a renewal fee is paid for an extension.

And his "reward" for putting up his own time and money in achieving resolution was to be publicly criticised and questioned by the AA hierarchy for his motives. Just leave it to the Arcade King though, he'll fix up the missing deposit money with his extensive knowledge of trust accounts and Mareva injunctions. He's a fixer.

Nice mangling of my quote to try and change the context by the way.

It's called pro bono and all do it.

An open response on an internet forum costs nothing and giving his identity in the post was made to reinforce the point and informal notice being made.

Everything from this point on will involve a financial burden to both sides. It all depends on who values the outcome more and who has the deeper pockets. The outcome though will be a foregone conclusion based on the prima facie evidence itself even without initiating civil action. One is a mom and pop webfront based on the other side of the pond and one is an official licensee with the defacto backing of a US corporate.

A cease and desist costs a few hundred to draft and send by certified mail par avion with signature. That is nearly always the end of the matter in my experience.

Taking the topic back to the original point of this thread, but presumably that PPS license is not only perpetual and exclusive, but the defined territory is deemed as in force worldwide as well.

Go back a few years on rgp circa 2006. The same attorney made a similar public statement regarding an ongoing case when he was representing IPB in a similar matter. Public statement, followed by certified mail cease and desist with list of demands followed by settlement and any issues of compensation.

I've seen this being played out before in similar circumstances. The lead characters may have changed, but the plotline remains the same.

That's why the outcome won't be too hard to predict.

Keep in mind though, that a few years later Griffiths v United States of America saw a change in mindset into the expansion of the sphere of US interests pertaining to the application of copyright infringement in large part due to the growth of the internet.

In 2005, Hew Griffiths was an Australian who had never set foot in the USA. He engaged in acts of copyright infringement and distributed the material online via Australian servers thus by proxy making it available to the US. The US sought and obtained his extradition through our domestic Federal court. He did a 3 year stretch in a US prison before being deported back to Australia and barred from ever entering the US.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2005/34.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=hew%20griffiths

It is also important to note that both the USA and the UK are signatories to the Berne Convention and WIPO which guarantee that the rights of any author shall have the same protection for their works in other countries as those countries accord their own domestic authors. A United States author is therefore automatically entitled to protection against the infringement of his work to any foreign jurisdiction that is a member of the Berne Union. Since the UK also has similar legislation and provisions regarding copyright (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/18) it is easily foreseeable that a foreign applicant could enact proceedings in a UK court if they so desired.

As said in an earlier post, with deep enough pockets anything is possible.

Lets just hope events don't deteriorate any further and some form of compromise can be reached.

The Griffiths case was just an example (albeit an extreme one) of how one nation's copyright laws can become borderless in the age of the internet.

A far more cost effective solution would be simply to retain the services of a law firm with offices in both respective countries then file the statement of claim in the country where the infringement allegedly occurred.

Here you go Pete, one of your personal idols.

And a very natty fashion sense I might add. LOL.

travvy (resized).JPG

Playing devil's advocate, and I can't extrapolate as to the other companies, but if the online claims that PPS doesn't have a valid license for the Bally brand name at least are accurate then what exactly did he purchase from Ballypinball in Australia besides inventory?

Under the Bally brand name using aftermarket reproduction Williams parts.

I can only go based on the legal correspondence I have read firsthand in the past from the same litigator mentioned previously to other alleged copyright infringers (official Jones Day letterhead, personally signed, certified mail with receipted delivery) outlining the allegations of infringement and remedies demanded with a timeframe for compliance.

Professional privilege obviously restricts me from making any specific contents public, but I can assure you that the claims of a license at least for the Bally/Williams brand names and to make reproduction parts under license appear valid based on the contents of the correspondence itself.

If true, it is one hell of a game being played as the strike rate is 100%. Every recipient has historically from all of the licensees involved both past and present has either backed down by either agreeing to cease sale of alleged infringing copies and pay compensation or reached an agreement whereby the licensee receive a fee per unit sold.

To my knowledge, none have taken it beyond a C&D or by official letter drafted by an attorney from a law firm.

I remember that stipulation being part of the original conditions when ThePinballFactory had the license to reproduce MM machines. Presumably PPS effectively inherited those same conditions when the license was sold and transferred back to the US with PinballFactory retaining a limited right to manufacture MM machines for those customers still with deposit monies down.

Mic drop.

The first letter from WEG-SGI's own in house IP counsel surely puts it to rest.

Why would a WEG in house attorney be talking about Capcom rights?

The conversation in the thread had shifted in the last few pages to it being implied that PPS doesn't even hold the rights to Bally/Williams which doesn't make any sense since as alluded to earlier a transfer of rights took place a few years ago when they changed hands and shifted from Australia back to the USA.

That's the only position I am commenting on with certainty.

As for Capcom rights, your guess is as good as mine.

Similar to implementing the playfield assurance option (for an additional fee, of course). Shift the onus onto the end consumer rather than maintaining inventory quality standards and penalising their supplier for defective product.

Say for example buying a new MM playfield based on the listed picture and then receiving one with a large knothole in the shooter lane.

All part of the manufacturing process apparently.

Particularly when all of their higher priced items are sent out with a Bally license authentication with a serialised number attached to it.

They are, by proxy representing that brand with the not unreasonable expectation at least in the consumer's mind that this item is of a higher standard/grading process than the usual bootleg product.