Edward the Compressor, by Ted Fletcher

  • Thread starter Thread starter tubedude
  • Start date Start date
I don't believe Fletcher would put up with being bullied by PMI anymore than he did with Neumann.
 
DJL said:
I don't believe Fletcher would put up with being bullied by PMI anymore than he did with Neumann.
Click to expand...

For the record, "Fletcher" of Mercenary Audio and "Ted Fletcher" of TFPro Audio (and formerly of Joe Meek) are two different people.
 
If I might interject here, there is a very important point that has been made in this thread a few times, but that people seem to keep glossing over. If there is to be any clarity in this discussion whatsoever, it is very important to keep the following in mind:

WHETHER ALAN HAS A LEGITIMATE CLAIM AGAINST TFPRO/TED FLETCHER IS A VERY DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN WHETHER HE HAS A CLAIM AGAINST MOJO PIE/OZRAVES/STEVE.

Quite frankly, there is a lot of crucial information that is not available to the general public that would be needed to determine for certain whether his claim against TFPro/Ted Fletcher is legitimate. HOWEVER, there is plenty enough information available to determine that any claim against Steve would be bogus.

Somebody, somewhere along the line, seems to have gotten the impression that Alan had to have his lawyers send a threatening letter to Steve or it would be "selective enforcement". That is so, so VERY wrong. Steve is not manufacturing or selling gear with "Joe Meek", "Ted Fletcher" or any other similar trademarks on them. He is merely a supplier of advertising services. Any doctrine of "selective enforcement" doesn't apply in that context.

In short, Steve is not using the marks as trademarks. He therefore could not possibly be liable for trademark infringement, even if TFPRo was. That's really not a debatable point. The law is clear. Anyone who thinks the letter is a "legal formality" is completely off base. To the contrary, it is very unusual for someone alleging trademark infringement to threaten an advertiser in that manner. And to threaten a lawsuit against someone you have no claim against in order to force them to do something you have no right to force them to do is completely unethical.

Please keep that in mind when you say that "Alan was just doing what he had to do" or was "just protecting what's his".
 
JS,

If what you say is correct, and I'm not disputing your view, what facts do you think the lawyers are basing their letter on, as I can't imagine them taking this action if they didn't see some valid facts to back it up.

:cool:
 
NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT

A BUS DROVE OFF THE INTERSTATE TODAY OVER A 100 FOOT CLIFF


There is good news and there is bad news:



The good news is that the bus was full of lawyers.





































The bad news is that 3 of them survived.
 
ausrock said:
I can't imagine them taking this action if they didn't see some valid facts to back it up.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what annoys me about it. I see this all the time. Some lawyers (I'd like to think it's a minority) write letters like that purely to intimidate. And they do it because it works. Recently, I had a client who was wrongfully dismissed from his employment. His employer owed him a couple of thousand dollars for various expenses that should have been reimbursed to him and weren't. When I wrote a demand letter to the company, their lawyer telephoned me "off the record" to tell me that if we sued the company, the company would counterclaim for everything they could think of, whether they actually had grounds or not, and that they would do whatever they could do to bankrupt my client by dragging out the legal proceedngs. As that lawyer said, his client had "deep pockets" and my client was the "little guy". Regardless of who's right or wrong, deep pockets almost always win against the little guy because they can outspend him. So, my client didn't pursue his claim even though he was totally in the right. It's bullying, pure and simple. It's wrong, but it works. And that's what I see going on here.
 
I wonder why Alan didn't just contact Steve and try to work out everything with a simple phone call.
 
Last edited:
jslator said:
Well, that's what annoys me about it. I see this all the time. Some lawyers (I'd like to think it's a minority) write letters like that purely to intimidate. And they do it because it works. Recently, I had a client who was wrongfully dismissed from his employment. His employer owed him a couple of thousand dollars for various expenses that should have been reimbursed to him and weren't. When I wrote a demand letter to the company, their lawyer telephoned me "off the record" to tell me that if we sued the company, the company would counterclaim for everything they could think of, whether they actually had grounds or not, and that they would do whatever they could do to bankrupt my client by dragging out the legal proceedngs. As that lawyer said, his client had "deep pockets" and my client was the "little guy". Regardless of who's right or wrong, deep pockets almost always win against the little guy because they can outspend him. So, my client didn't pursue his claim even though he was totally in the right. It's bullying, pure and simple. It's wrong, but it works. And that's what I see going on here.
Click to expand...
Humm, he should have went to the "Better Business Bureaus" instead of an attorney... and he would have even been paid penalty and late fees on top of what they owed him. ;)
 
This has all been interesting, but I didn't understand most of it, being a dumb shit. The only thing I know about the law, as I just found out while driving through Moab, Utah, is that fines for speeding are doubled in construction zones.

I sometimes think I have a little common sense, although I know this seldom has anything to do with the law. Laws are rules often made by the greedy haves to get a little more from the have-nots, and are arbitrated by people who demand exorbitant payments, both monetary and in blood, from all parties involved.

It seems this situation is pretty simple (ignoring the law of course.) Alan thinks Ted should not be using what are essentially exact copies (outwardly anyway) of designs that Alan thinks he owns. Ted is advertising these designs on Steve's website. Alan's lawyer sent Steve a letter telling him he can't advertise them.

Common sense would dictate that, until a court says Ted can't make and sell these anymore, Steve and anyone else can advertise them.

Steve should tell Alan's lawyer to suck his dick until that happens (in lawyer talk of course.) But then, I'm just a dumb shit.
 
Soundsense said:
In the UK we have a law about "passing off", so it may be possible to argue that as the look of the TFPro kit is similar to the pre-PMI Joe Meek Kit, then TFPro are "passing themselves off" as Joe Meek, even though the product's a different colour and the buttons do different things.
Click to expand...

But this should really not come much into play, because most TFPro products are not just "passing off" they are complete copies of jomeek gear, with the exception of the color.

So that's a copyright issue.

The passing off issue might be valid for Edward the compressor, but it seems quite unlikely. It's more there when you make watches that look like Rolex, but is name Ralix instead. :)
 
jslator said:
Well, that's what annoys me about it. I see this all the time. Some lawyers (I'd like to think it's a minority) write letters like that purely to intimidate. And they do it because it works.
Click to expand...

Unless of course, the recipient gets a lawyer too. Then it doesn't work. But then, at least he gave some work to another lawyer. :(

Lawyers should get punished for doing uneccesary things.
 
regebro said:
Unless of course, the recipient gets a lawyer too.
Click to expand...

I am a lawyer. The whole point is that my client couldn't afford to pay the enormous legal fees it would have taken to fight the bully even though my client was in the right and the bully, by its own admission, had no legitimate claim.
 
jslator said:
I am a lawyer. The whole point is that my client couldn't afford to pay the enormous legal fees it would have taken to fight the bully even though my client was in the right and the bully, by its own admission, had no legitimate claim.
Click to expand...
But had he went to the Better Business Bureaus he wouldn't of had any enormous legal fees... and he would have got his money and more... plus the fight would had been between his ex-employer and the Better Business Bureaus. ;)
 
DJL said:
But had he went to the Better Business Bureaus he wouldn't of had any enormous legal fees... and he would have got his money and more... plus the fight would had been between his ex-employer and the Better Business Bureaus.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Maybe the BBB is taken more seriously where you live, but around here its pretty much useless, even for consumer complaints. And if you went to them trying to get a wrongful dismissal claim (or something like Steve's issue) sorted out, I'm pretty sure you'd either get laughed at, or more likely, you'd just get a blank stare in return.
 
jslator said:
I am a lawyer. The whole point is that my client couldn't afford to pay the enormous legal fees it would have taken to fight the bully even though my client was in the right and the bully, by its own admission, had no legitimate claim.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But if he COULD afford it, then *two* lawyers would have a job doing absolutely nothing useful.

Ain't the legal world fine? :)
 
jslator said:
Uh, no. Maybe the BBB is taken more seriously where you live, but around here its pretty much useless, even for consumer complaints.
Click to expand...
Bumper, and yeah it's taken seriously here.
 
No, that's my whole point. If you, as a lawyer, send an intimidating letter to somebody, this somebody will either yield (Yay, you got want you wanted!) or he'll hire another lawyer (Yay, both you and your lawyer friend now makes lots of money!).

That's my point. The lawyer can't loose. It's a safe bet being a lawyer, because either way, you get paid!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top