Infinium Labs Countersues HardOCP

loftydog writes "Gamespot is reporting that our favorite console manufacturer has thrown down a gauntlet in Florida. Seems they didn't want to play in Texas with HardOCP. Turns out that SCO doesn't have a corner on the lawyer market after all, and we'll see something from Infinium, even if it is an overpaid suit."

Comments

May backfire?

[grub]

I'd love to see the judge say "OK, Infinium.. Let's see your console that HardOCP has been blasting." It may be another SCOish "We'd love to but it's our proprietary product!"

Re:May backfire?

[Amiga Lover]

This makes me realise it's a little bit WORSE than SCO.

At least, at one point in time, SCO had a product.

Now a vaporware company is suing the people who haven't reviewed their non products.

(They had to step up from suing their own customers like SCO because, hey, being vaporware they HAVE no customers)

Read the brief, and damn is Infinium sad.

[mwarps]

I just read the motion to dismiss and supporting brief relating to the Texas suit. Infinium is not going to have much of a fun time in this suit. Their counsel are incompetent. I've yet to read anything prepared by [H]'s lawyers, but it's got to be better than the inane dribble that Infinium has sent to the Tx District Court. Misspellings, wrong words, never mind the fact that they're plainly disrespectful in some places, and oh, flat out wrong in some, too.

Motion to dismiss:
here

Re:Read the brief, and damn is Infinium sad.

[tsanth]

Actually, it seems to call to bear something in Texas's law about not infringing upon "fair play"; that is, that Infinium has done nothing in Texas, as as such, shouldn't be held sway under Texan law. The several precedents that Infinium's lawyers have seem to fit the case, but it feels like KB made the declaration because of Infinium's actions, not, as the brief implied (and somewhat stated), out of malicious intent.

IANAL, of course, but I wonder about the section about "minimum contact" with the state of Texas. It seems to me that mudslinging across the internet and bringing attention to the whole thing constitutes as some form of contact... but perhaps a real lawyer can inform me differently.

Interesting Site

[The-Dalai-LLama]

Their website is gorgeous. Takes forever to load, but the eye-candy is sweet.

I'm not a cool-guy web designer, but they list a "Pentium III" as a site requirement. I can't recall seeing another site that listed a processing requirement. Is that legit?

Also interesting to note that, according to the Phantom.net branch of their site,

"On March 31st, 2004 you will be able to build your high-octane Phantom Game System and for a limited time only purchase lifetime subscriptions." [emphasis added by me]

The Dalai Llama
constantly amazed at just how far people will go to get press...wait a minute, nobody visits my site, either. If you're reading this sig, expect to be contacted by my legal team.

Re:Hhmmm

[tomstdenis]

Can't be libel if it's true. ;-)

As I understand it they pointed out who the owner of the console firm was [e.g. his past] which was fairly accurate based on the fact that all the people they contacted didn't want to admit the truth... [e.g. some degree of freedom].

It's also true that while getting investment for yet another business they have yet to actually produce a unit. [Recall: the dudes previous business ventures were flops too].

So if anything the original article may have had some inaccuracies but the overall picture is right. e.g. this dude is a V.C. scammer looking for the next big dig.

Tom