Yeah I'm just going to leave all the fighting to PP and ABC when they make it to court and let a judge decide who's in the wrong.

Again, it is highly unlikely that this case ever gets close to courtroom. PP and Disney/ABC will settle long before then. ABC is already taking steps to address PP's complaints stated in its brief which is an acknowledgement that it is in the wrong on these particular issues anyway. No doubt will ABC will negotiate further with PP to compensate it for breaching the licensing agreement.

Edited April 21, 201312 yr by Ann_SS

PP vs ABC is soapier and has more twists and turns than JR's Masterpiece!

Good grief, it's sunk so low as a lawsuit? I was LOLing over PP' s complaints myself until I just read ABC gave PP the URLs.

We can debate til the cows come home, but ABC just acceded at least one of PP's complaints was valid. As a shark attorney friend used to say, if a defendant blinks in the morning on even the slightest point, the sharks will have him for lunch.

I smell blood in the water. ABC is too notoriously stubborn to be taking any steps to mitigate damage this quickly.

Baseless!

:lol: :lol:

Closely followed by Tracy Melchoir (ex Kelly) filming on the set of OLTL as her replacement, Heather Tom, is being escorted around the set to meet her new co-workers. TM said she was physically ill and didn't even bother to show up for her last day. Who does that to someone?

That is terrible!

No they should Not, GH used a OLTL character that was not on loan to them. They can sue for that and should. it's a matter of principle. Someone creates something and then someone else uses it without permission, but just because that someone says I meant you harm, the creator shouldnt sue? BULL [!@#$%^&*]

No doubt. If the law were based on principle.....LOL

Scenario:

Vee unexpectedly comes home in the middle of the afternoon to find Marceline's 20th Century Painting at his (Vee, you're a guy, right) house with the intent to paint the house. So far, they only paint the front door a nice light green that really blends with the neighborhood. The house is pretty big. Vee pulls into the drive way because he knows he contracted no one to paint the house. V discovers that these people s/b next door painting the neighbor's house. Vee says nothing because he's been meaning to get around to painting the house anyhow, but due to the economy, postponed it. Vee returns home 7 hours later only to see that not only did Marceline's crew paint the house a lovely light green, but there are brown cows with pink polka dots painted over the green. It's truly hideous and embarrassing. Vee files a suit against M20CP for the cost to have the house stripped and repainted.

Vee will only be compensated for the door, if that, because he could have stopped M20CP from harming him but didn't because he could have gained from the paint job (as long as his presence was not acknowledged at the house during the project).

Wrong. Vee could file both criminal and civil charges against Marceline whether he stopped her immediately or not because, whether he was happy at first or not, he never contracted her to paint his house. Therefore, if he files suit within the statute of limitations (and/or the state decides to pick up vandalism, criminal mischief, or whatever other charge they could file), Vee would be well within his right to sue. He doesn't have to stop her. He's not the police. But that doesn't mean he can't turn around and sue for damages after the fact.

Like it or not, that's the law, which is why, as I said earlier, clearly there are no lawyers, paralegals, or criminal justice majors posting this kind of crap, let alone anyone who's even taken any basic law course or watched an episode of "People's Court." If there were, you all wouldn't be posting this kind of nonsensical crap. The law may not be fair, it may not be principled, but it is the law and if it's not followed to a "T," there can be cause of action.

Like it or not, Vee starts off as an innocent bystander who then decides to enact litigation. He is not in any way, shape, or form obligated to stop Marceline from doing anything (except in some small towns). Marceline should know better and since she clearly had no legal advice nor common sense nor even the slightest bit of inclination of what the law may be (assuming Marceline isn't mentally incapacitated, which I don't believe to be the case), then she is in the wrong and he is in the right regardless if he caught her mid-act or after the fact.

Clearly, you don't know chit about how our legal system works.

Edited April 21, 201312 yr by juniorz1

Dang, why are people getting so PRESSED over this?

Because it's very simple, it's been laid out in simple terms, and yet the same people keep repeating the same things ad nauseum that have no impact on the issue, yet they say them as though they do, in actuality, have a basis. Which they don't. I'm sorry, but how many times can the 6 of us explain this without someone chiming in repeating the exact same scenario that they've already been told is factually incorrect.

Google contract law for crap's sake. We're not speaking Lebanese here, this is simple English, put in the most simplistic of ways, that a 4 year old would have understood and shut up about by now. And until this thread either dies, or moves on from this circular issue, I will keep jumping in with the rest of those who know what they're talking about and stop this nonsense.

The PP/ABC crap is old and this is why. It's just the same f-ing opinions (mostly speculated and not based in reality) repeated ad nauseum and I, for one, am over it. Obviously you're smart enough that you get it by now, why can't the rest of them?

Funnily enough, it seems to be that same clique that practically drove that dude off the board who posted that stupid, harmless P&G April Fool's Joke, not that it matters. But enough is enough and right is right and wrong is wrong.

So by all means, come in here and post more bullsh!t scenarios but it seems to me that enough of us are checking the thread that you're gonna get checked if you do. And, sorry, but when you're making baseless opinions and telling the people who are giving you the FACTS that the FACTS are baseless, then you deserve it.

[/end of (this) rant]

Because it's very simple, it's been laid out in simple terms, and yet the same people keep repeating the same things ad nauseum that have no impact on the issue, yet they say them as though they do, in actuality, have a basis. Which they don't. I'm sorry, but how many times can the 6 of us explain this without someone chiming in repeating the exact same scenario that they've already been told is factually incorrect.

Google contract law for crap's sake. We're not speaking Lebanese here, this is simple English, put in the most simplistic of ways, that a 4 year old would have understood and shut up about by now. And until this thread either dies, or moves on from this circular issue, I will keep jumping in with the rest of those who know what they're talking about and stop this nonsense.

The PP/ABC crap is old and this is why. It's just the same f-ing opinions (mostly speculated and not based in reality) repeated ad nauseum and I, for one, am over it. Obviously you're smart enough that you get it by now, why can't the rest of them?

Funnily enough, it seems to be that same clique that practically drove that dude off the board who posted that stupid, harmless P&G April Fool's Joke, not that it matters. But enough is enough and right is right and wrong is wrong.

So by all means, come in here and post more bullsh!t scenarios but it seems to me that enough of us are checking the thread that you're gonna get checked if you do. And, sorry, but when you're making baseless opinions and telling the people who are giving you the FACTS that the FACTS are baseless, then you deserve it.

[/end of (this) rant]

Relax!

Relax!

Nice one word retort. Sorry, but your entire scenario was nonsensical and wrong and you're just pissed that I laid it all out there.

Eat chit!

Edited April 21, 201312 yr by juniorz1

LMAO

Because it's very simple, it's been laid out in simple terms, and yet the same people keep repeating the same things ad nauseum that have no impact on the issue, yet they say them as though they do, in actuality, have a basis. Which they don't. I'm sorry, but how many times can the 6 of us explain this without someone chiming in repeating the exact same scenario that they've already been told is factually incorrect.

]

my thing is why do people care so much to the point that they are getting so worked up over it. You feel the opposing side is wrong and ignorant on the issue than let them be wrong and ignorant bc arguing back and forth repeating the same things doesn't seem to change anything. It's crazy how pressed people are getting over technicalities here as if they have a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation

Wrong. Vee could file both criminal and civil charges against Marceline whether he stopped her immediately or not because, whether he was happy at first or not, he never contracted her to paint his house. Therefore, if he files suit within the statute of limitations (and/or the state decides to pick up vandalism, criminal mischief, or whatever other charge they could file), Vee would be well within his right to sue. He doesn't have to stop her. He's not the police. But that doesn't mean he can't turn around and sue for damages after the fact.

Like it or not, that's the law, which is why, as I said earlier, clearly there are no lawyers, paralegals, or criminal justice majors posting this kind of crap, let alone anyone who's even taken any basic law course or watched an episode of "People's Court." If there were, you all wouldn't be posting this kind of nonsensical crap. The law may not be fair, it may not be principled, but it is the law and if it's not followed to a "T," there can be cause of action.

Like it or not, Vee starts off as an innocent bystander who then decides to enact litigation. He is not in any way, shape, or form obligated to stop Marceline from doing anything (except in some small towns). Marceline should know better and since she clearly had no legal advice nor common sense nor even the slightest bit of inclination of what the law may be (assuming Marceline isn't mentally incapacitated, which I don't believe to be the case), then she is in the wrong and he is in the right regardless if he caught her mid-act or after the fact.

Clearly, you don't know chit about how our legal system works.

Wait a minute! PP sues ABC and suddenly I'm a house painting vandal who may or may not be mentally incapacitated?! If we're going to have an alternate universe can't I be a jewel thief or captain of the Enterprise? This isn't fun anymore!!

my thing is why do people care so much to the point that they are getting so worked up over it. You feel the opposing side is wrong and ignorant on the issue than let them be wrong and ignorant bc arguing back and forth repeating the same things doesn't seem to change anything. It's crazy how pressed people are getting over technicalities here as if they have a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation

The only people who should be pressed are ABC/ PP. Anger amongst fellow posters makes no sense to me. Never has!