London Sound Survey Crisis

[Flosshilde]

Well said Gongers.

I can't conceive what can possibly be considered dodgy about Mr Rawes or his project.

Mr Solomons appears to be a bully who goes out of his way to find enterprises with similar names to his & threaten them. I wonder about his business structure - perhaps he makes more money from his 'licences'?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I just want to know how he got into the position he's in.

Isn't it "just" a case that the name of his facility has attracted the attention someone with a dodgy knowledge of the Law and an even weaker grasp on reality?

[ahinton]

Mr Solomons appears to be a bully who goes out of his way to find enterprises with similar names to his & threaten them. I wonder about his business structure - perhaps he makes more money from his 'licences'?

Both could indeed be true, although I didn't notice anyone actually suggesting that Mr Rawes or his project were "dodgy".

[ahinton]

Isn't it "just" a case that the name of his facility has attracted the attention someone with a dodgy knowledge of the Law and an even weaker grasp on reality?

This certainly sounds plausible, although I suppose that we won't know for sure unless the issue, such as it is, goes public by coming to court.

[french frank]

It seems to me as if Mr Rawes has become thoroughly rattled by the constant barrage of threats. There is no possibility of any confusion between what the two services [sic] are offering. Whatever. So Mr Solomons appears to think his 'ownership' of the two words "London Sound", taken together, constitutes a personal possession which he can make money from by hiring out. That is NOT protecting his valid business interests. It has no connection with his interests as a hi-fi repair business.

[Alain Maréchal]

Has Mr. Rawes. or anybody else, ascertained the cost of Mr. Solomon's "licence"? If it is moderate and fixed for a specified number of years then paying it, however irksome, may be the least costly option.

[ahinton]

Has Mr. Rawes. or anybody else, ascertained the cost of Mr. Solomon's "licence"? If it is moderate and fixed for a specified number of years then paying it, however irksome, may be the least costly option.

I am not aware that he has but, even if he has and if it is indeed modest, why simply agree to pay it without question just because such payment is being demanded of him? I don't know all the factrs of the case but such as I have read does rather sound as though Mr Solomons might simply be an advantage taker rather than a bona fide business owner acting to protect his genuine interets and assets with the law on his side in so doing.

[Alain Maréchal]

why simply agree to pay it without question just because such payment is being demanded of him?

The answer is the last six words of my post.

[ahinton]

It seems to me as if Mr Rawes has become thoroughly rattled by the constant barrage of threats.

That does indeed appear to be the case.

There is no possibility of any confusion between what the two services [sic] are offering.

No, indeed there doesn't, which makes it all the harder to understand what all the fuss is about on Mr Solomons' part.

So Mr Solomons appears to think his 'ownership' of the two words "London Sound", taken together, constitutes a personal possession which he can make money from by hiring out. That is NOT protecting his valid business interests. It has no connection with his interests as a hi-fi repair business.

No, it doesn't but, if one of his other business interests is indeed hiring out - or rather licensing - something of which he genuinely and demonstrably possesses legal ownership, there would seem to be nothing wrong with that in priniple; however, if he's not formally registered that ownership and is appearing instead to rely solely upon the length of time that he has traded under the name concerned, he would appear to be on a very sticky wicket indeed, on which basis it might be wise for Mr Rawes to sit back and wait for the letter before action from Mr Solomons' lawyer followed by said action that may never materialise in order to determine whether or not Mr Solomons is simply trying to pull a fast one.

[ahinton]

The answer is the last six words of my post.

I know, but is it the right answer and, if not, why should he stump up for something that he has no legal obligation to fund, especially if the legitimacy of Mr Solomons' demand is predicated upon a legal ownership that he has not formally registered and might therefore be unable to prove in court? The precedent here should be as obvious as it is dangerous; all sorts of people could make all sorts of claims based on thin or no tangible evidence and hope to get away with at least some of them as a result of their bullying tactics.

[Alain Maréchal]

all sorts of people could make all sorts of claims based on thin or no tangible evidence and hope to get away with at least some of them as a result of their bullying tactics.

They could, but is it likely that they would? Perhaps Mr. Solomon's attention should be drawn to these people:

http://londonsoundacademy.co.uk/

They look as though they could afford a defence. In fact, why not suggest to them that they ask Mr Solomon to desist using their name? There must be many others, including perhaps a division of Decca, or whatever it is these days.

Standing on principle can be a ruinous decision.

[Dave2002]

I've now looked at both web sites - the one for London Sound Survey, and the one for London Sound. They appear to me to be sufficiently distinct. Also note that the web site for London Sound Survey is http://www.soundsurvey.org.uk/ which is very different from http://www.londonsound.org/ so there is no confusion about the web sites. Note though that London Sound uses a .org form, which is somewhat different in nature from .com or .co.uk - such a designation often shows a not for profit organisation, which is not the case for the repair shop.

Both seem to be viable businesses, and the dispute, such as it is, seems to be rather silly. Could it not easily be resolved over a pint or a coffee to each party's mutual benefit, rather than conducting some form of war? For example, each site could have a link to the other, and a disclaimer that they are distinct businesses, and have no direct conflict of interest.

What might help is if both sites use meta tags to differentiate their activities. I can understand that where search engines are concerned that one site may appear higher in the rankings than another, if tags aren't used, though that does not seem to happen with Google at least, in this case.

The suggestion to ignore the matter also seems reasonable to me, or if that doesn't work a solicitor's letter stating the situation, and that there is really no case to answer and that any further "demands" for payment would constitute unwanted harassment, might not cost too much, certainly not as much as £300 providing that no further action resulted.

I can perfectly well understand that £300 is a lot of money to lose for a site which is not being run on a "for profit" basis.

Serious litigation is surely not in either party's interest, but sometimes people get carried away. It does not automatically follow from the information I've seen that either party is a "bad" guy - but there does seem to be poor communication, and perhaps a poor perception of "reality" by at least one party involved.

[ahinton]

They could, but is it likely that they would?

I doubt that many would, but at the same time I have no doubt that there are others of Mr Solomons' apparent persuasion who might feel tempted to give it a go, however foolish such a decision might turn out to be.

Perhaps Mr. Solomon's attention should be drawn to these people:

http://londonsoundacademy.co.uk/

They look as though they could afford a defence. In fact, why not suggest to them that they ask Mr Solomon to desist using their name? There must be many others, including perhaps a division of Decca, or whatever it is these days.

Good point!

Standing on principle can be a ruinous decision.

So can making regular payments that can ill be afforded from the bank account of a not-for-profit business, especially in the absence of any confirmed legal obligation on the part of that business to do so; in this case, much if not all might appear to hang upon whether, how and to what extent Mr Solomons can prove legal title to what it is that he seeks to licence and derive income from, should Mr Rawes decide to give in to his demands. Mr Rawse ought, however, to be able to acquire sufficient basic advice from an IP specialist lawyer on a pro bono basis (most such lawyers will give half an hour to an hour free of charge at the outset) to equip him with knowledge as to whether Mr Solomons has any right to make the demands of him that he's evidently making.

[MrGongGong]

Indeed - but then no one IS telling you that, or anything like it!

.

Really ?

So they all live on fresh air and have bus passes?

zzzzz not really the point though

[ahinton]

I've now looked at both web sites - the one for London Sound Survey, and the one for London Sound. They appear to me to be sufficiently distinct. Also note that the web site for London Sound Survey is http://www.soundsurvey.org.uk/ which is very different from http://www.londonsound.org/ so there is no confusion about the web sites. Note though that London Sound uses a .org form, which is somewhat different in nature from .com or .co.uk - such a designation often shows a not for profit organisation, which is not the case for the repair shop.

Both seem to be viable businesses, and the dispute, such as it is, seems to be rather silly. Could it not easily be resolved over a pint or a coffee to each party's mutual benefit, rather than conducting some form of war? For example, each site could have a link to the other, and a disclaimer that they are distinct businesses, and have no direct conflict of interest.

It does indeed seem silly and ought to be resolvable by such means but that would presumably be down to Mr Solomons' preparedness to extend an olive branch to Mr Rawes but, if that's not on the cards because Mr Solomons either feels certain of his rights or hopes to be able to bully Mr Rawes into making payments to his organisation regardless of whether he possesses such rights, then it won't be a solution.

What might help is if both sites use meta tags to differentiate their activities. I can understand that where search engines are concerned that one site may appear higher in the rankings than another, if tags aren't used, though that does not seem to happen with Google at least, in this case.

As the businesses are not in competition with one another and their website names are quite different, this hardly seems relevant somehow.

The suggestion to ignore the matter also seems reasonable to me, or if that doesn't work a solicitor's letter stating the situation, and that there is really no case to answer and that any further "demands" for payment would constitute unwanted harassment, might not cost too much, certainly not as much as £300 providing that no further action resulted.

I can perfectly well understand that £300 is a lot of money to lose for a site which is not being run on a "for profit" basis.

Agreed, but what might also make sense would be for Mr Rawes first to write to Mr Solomons and request copies of the relevant documentation upon which Mr Solomons would claim to rely when seeking to exercise what he appears to believe are his legal rights in the matter and, should Mr Solomons co-operate, Mr Rawes would at least be able to get a quick without prejudice opinion on these from an IP lawyer as part of a pro bono meeting and thereby ascertain whether Mr Solomons really does have exercisable legal rights or whether he's simply bluffing in the hope of getting away with it.

Serious litigation is surely not in either party's interest, but sometimes people get carried away. It does not automatically follow from the information I've seen that either party is a "bad" guy - but there does seem to be poor communication, and perhaps a poor perception of "reality" by at least one party involved.

Quite. I would actually be surprised, however, were Mr Solomons prepared to fund a lawyer's letter before action and then enter into and fund such litigation but, even if he were, there's no certainty that a lawyer would take on such a case, or that even if one did so he/she'd be able to find counsel willing to accept instructions therein or that, even if all that were possible, a court would be prepared to try such a case (courts are usually quite well versed in sniffing out vexatious litigation that would be a waste of their time); it seems to me that, unless Mr Solomons is indeed bluffing and he wouldn't actually do any of this, he could stand to lose money if he cannot progress his case to trial.

Re the pro bono thing; ever since a certain playwright penned a line about killing all the lawyers, there has been a widespread perception that no lawyer will so much open his door to a client without charging for so doing, including the cost of a can of WD40 to oil the door hinges afterwards, but that's not what usually happens in reality. More than 30 years ago I had to seek advice from an IP lawyer about my rights in trying to obtain a copy of an out-of-print publication of Frank Bridge's Second Piano Trio (one of his finest works, I think); the publishers first refused to make me a photocopy despite having the the means and right to do so and then declined to respond to my further requests. I was advised to write to them again, three times in succession at fortnightly intervals and send the letters by what was then called Registered Post and that if I heard nothing back I could go armed with that correspondence to a music library that possessed a copy and ask them to make me one and that, should the publishers ever find out (which would be unlikely) and sue for copyright infringement (which would be even more unlikely), I could let them do so and they'd lose their case hands down. I got the best part of an hour of the lawyer's time and was not charged a penny for it. After the third letter, the publisher agreed to supply me with a photocopy at an extortionate price, which I paid in advance only to receive a tatty copy which had previously been annotated by an earlier user.