No offence Wendell, but I have no idea what you are talking about, so I doubt anyone will quote what you said to use against you.
eg.
" 1) Any duplicative production of product either COULD be duplicative or COULD NOT be duplicative by agreement (incl. any previous defined patent rulings);"
What does that mean?
Exactly what it says.
Do a google translation to Oz.
Curmudgeon said:Is there anyone else that doesn't understand it either?
Exactly what it says. Do a google translation to Oz.
Tony and likely many others – yep, maybe TOC.
Here’s one clarification to Tony’s response above:
IF both G-45 and the German LGB company agree to BOTH be able to create LGB branded products, market them, and sell them, then they are in agreement that they can duplicate each other. The obvious duplication similarity would be in brand name alone --e.g. both, by mutual agreement, get to sell their versions of LGB model railroad products under the LGB name.
Wendell
Wendell Hanks said:
Tony and likely many others -- yep, maybe TOC.Here’s one clarification to Tony’s response above:
IF both G-45 and the German LGB company agree to BOTH be able to create LGB branded products, market them, and sell them, then they are in agreement that they can duplicate each other. The obvious duplication similarity would be in brand name alone --e.g. both, by mutual agreement, get to sell their versions of LGB model railroad products under the LGB name.
Wendell
Let me see if I do understand.
Duplicate means two, or more, copies of the same thing? right.
If they are not the same, they are not duplicates.
Notwithstanding the above, having two sources of production under duplicate branding, seems an unusual and inefficient way of making “stuff” to me.
Can you name any other business in the model rail way field that does that.
Let’s see.
Mazda 323 and a Ford Escort.
Same car, different “logos”.
Totota Corolla and a Chevy Nova…same car, different “logos”.
Varney and Life-Like…same cars, different “logos”…
Curmudgeon said:Ahhh haa.....IMHO I seam to recall speculating in my ramblings that their might, just might, be a G45 logo sitting in the wings, for just such a thing, just in the mearest possibility that the Germie courts dont go the way certain parties would hope, IMHO only. ;)
Let's see. Mazda 323 and a Ford Escort. Same car, different "logos". Totota Corolla and a Chevy Nova.....same car, different "logos". Varney and Life-Like.....same cars, different "logos".....
Victor Smith said:Yeah, wouldn't that be a "corker"?? ;) :)Curmudgeon said:Ahhh haa.....IMHO I seam to recall speculating in my ramblings that their might, just might, be a G45 logo sitting in the wings, for just such a thing, just in the mearest possibility that the Germie courts dont go the way certain parties would hope, IMHO only. ;)
Let's see. Mazda 323 and a Ford Escort. Same car, different "logos". Totota Corolla and a Chevy Nova.....same car, different "logos". Varney and Life-Like.....same cars, different "logos".....
Naturally one could then select whichever make - ah hmmm I mean logo - according to the slight differences in packaging, quality control ( you have heard of “seconds”, right?) and price? Is that how “it” would work? 
Curmudgeon said:Chev, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile. Ford, Mercury. Dodge, Plymouth.
Let's see. Mazda 323 and a Ford Escort. Same car, different "logos".
Bar cosmetic differences.
I mentioned the “G45” branding some months ago and agree with Vic on his opinion. I’m not so sure I see LGB and G45 duplicating each other as much as I see G45 holding up the US outline production and LGB the European. Where I see the two sharing is with parts such as motor blocks, smoke units, electronics etc.
Warren and Vic’s speculation that G-45 may produce Western trains and LGB of Germany produce European trains might be realized.
The courts may tire of the simultaneous claims that the logo was sold to G-45 for its use vs. the logo was NOT sold, just the right of G-45 to produce and distribute in the USA specifically for the parent German company. The court could decline to declare “a sole rights of use” to either entity by favoring a “mutual” use declaration.
My guess is IF there had not been the financial crunch for LGB of Germany, LGB of America would have remained an understood arm of LGB of Germany. I guess German management needed the money and sold “X” agreement to G-45 – whatever “X” is now belongs to the thinking of the courts. At some point there will be a court translation as to who owns what.
So one sane out would be for the both to exist in two different LGB markets or for one to voluntarily abandon using the LGB brand and grant sole rights of use to the other – likely for $$$. I doubt if G-45 would want to buy from LGB Germany what they think they paid for in the first place. Conversely, LGB of Germany I doubt wants to buy back what they think they didn’t sell in the first place.
Yes, I suppose G-45 could produce the brand “G-45-LGB Western Trains” and the other "LGB-Eurpoean Trains.
Darn, I wish HJ could get his eye balls on the actual signed agreement that launched G-45 – an opportunity for a good exercise in my argumentation classes.
Meanwhile, the outcome could be what Warren and Vic have indicated.
Wendell
Guys,
Help me on this 1… I thought LGB of Germany sold LGB of America to G45 with certain “rights”… Then I thought they sold some notes for about 1/2 price, this is what caused the banks to go ballistic… If that is the case, then when Mr. Schontag’s backers got a look @ the goods & saw what had been sold to LGB of America, they turned and ran…
BulletBob
Bob Burton said:
Guys,Help me on this 1… I thought LGB of Germany sold LGB of America to G45 with certain “rights”… Then I thought they sold some notes for about 1/2 price, this is what caused the banks to go ballistic… If that is the case, then when Mr. Schontag’s backers got a look @ the goods & saw what had been sold to LGB of America, they turned and ran…
BulletBob
Bob,
Did you read that somewhere?
The notes were actually sold by the bank who held them - they were going broke holding a few other non-performers - to different banks.
Obviously those banks had to hold their breath 'til the term expired in order to take “real measures”, which they did.
A very interesting “wrinkle” in this is the “transfer of LGBoA” to “G45” (yes Sir, all the pertinent HTML files are stored 
), “transfer” means passing legal title. Interesting that this wasn’t termed a “sale”; pure semantics or design?
Unless the full rights to trademarks, distribution rights and patent rights were specifically transferred, then the successor company will have an excellent case to state that all rights automatically reverted back to Ernst Paul Lehmann Patentwerk OHG i.e. were included in the assets of the insolvent EPL OHG
And with that wrinkle we’re back at the position of the insolvency trustee and the fact that Kingsbridge Capital entered a bid.
Does anyone here entertain the notion that Kingsbridge Capital would have entered a bid if the rights (as in all the rights) were not included in the insolvency assets?
OK, I didn’t think so!
Does anyone believe that the insolvency trustee assembled the list of assets by sticking his finger in the air and hoping for the best?
Where and from whom would the insolvency trustee obtain his very first list of assets; as stipulated by law and to be followed to the very letter?
Wouldn’t Schöntag have asked the same questions as his “co-investors” long before he approached his investors with any business plan? Unless perhaps he was a “means of convenience”, but would that be possible?
Was there a falling out just prior to the Nürnberg Fair and as a result the “LGBoA” crew was supposedly not welcome on the EPL GmbH &Co KG display?
How did Tony Castellano know prior to the financing deadline that Schöntag would be unable to raise the money?
And why would he “broadcast” that via a press release and at the same time proclaim ownership of the worldwide rights, except for Germany?
Is there a connection between those last three questions???
Yes, yes, there are a lot more questions! But at this juncture they are simply questions, albeit ones that are asked in increasingly many quarters. The journalists are more than likely working very furiously, following leads and more leads!
Don’t change the channel!
PS No, I’m not a lawyer! I was going to add why not, but forget it … :D.
I wouldn’t want to accuse anyone of hanky panky…but it does look like somebody there is a “slight of hand” magician. Seems like assets keep disappearing and reappearing…and disappearing again…
Be careful making assumptions without facts…The Big Players in this game are rough…Just ask others that found out the hard way.
Disclaimer: I got no dog in this fight.
Warren Mumpower said:Warren,
I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of hanky panky....but it does look like somebody there is a "slight of hand" magician. Seems like assets keep disappearing and reappearing...and disappearing again....:/
The way I read it here not long ago is : “Mother … raised some sharp kids”, or something very similar.
Chances are there are other mothers with sharp kids.
“so it goes” Kurt Vonnegut
The Lone Railroader said:
................................Disclaimer: I got no dog in this fight.
Most of us don’t.
It’s just a matter of asking the right questions. Amazing what questions start surfacing in Germany!!
Hans-Joerg,
The reason I ask those questions was
a) this has been going on for a long time!!
b) can not remember a bankruptcies that the buyer backed out after the judge (trustee) said it is yours…
c) remember the Rock Island did…
Bob Burton said:Bob,
b) can not remember a bankruptcies that the buyer backed out after the judge (trustee) said it is yours...
In this case the Judge and the trustee are two different people. The buyer didn’t “back out”, he couldn’t come up with the promised money. I think that leaves one empty handed in any transaction.
Jack
The Lone Railroader said:
Be careful making assumptions without facts.........The Big Players in this game are rough.....Just ask others that found out the hard way.Disclaimer: I got no dog in this fight.
I dont think any of us are intending on making any kind of statements ment to be taken as factual, there are far to many unknowns still to be accounted for. Those in the know are keeping out of the discussion for the most part, leaving the rest of us to merely discuss what info we have been given and are simply trying to reach a reasoned opinion based on the information so far. The facts will fall into place in thier own time, but untill then all we are discussing is mere speculation.
Whatever happens will happen, but a healthy discussion about the situation and the possiblities is all we are doing, as long as we as a group and individuals are carefull to make it clear that these are merely our individual personal opinions and have no intention to profess those opinions as facts, we can continue this discussion.
Everone should remember to keep that in mind when posting our viewpoints.