Slashdot Mirror
Law Prof Characterizes Yahoo Suit as Extortion
netbuzz writes "Fair comment or libel? A law prof/blogger calls those behind the class-action suit against Yahoo 'extortionists.' The targeted lawyers, who include spyware/adware expert Ben Edelman, are not amused." From the article: "Goldman, who according to his blog 'holds leadership positions in the American Bar Association and the Computer Law Association,' addresses the merits of the suit in a generally academic fashion before winding up for the big finish: 'I think these lawsuits are nothing more than a shakedown for cash,' he concludes. 'Even unmeritorious class action lawsuits are expensive to defend, so the plaintiffs' lawyers can exploit those defense costs for their personal largesse. They can make this argument to defendants: settle with me for a fraction of your total expected defense costs, and we're both better off (defendants save some defense costs, plaintiffs' lawyers grab some personal loot).'"
I'm sure the various Bar Associations will backdate his disbarment.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The feed is then accepted.
We also manage keyword buys. We'll submit a list of keywords, for example, "baby jump suits" -- to have it rejected (without notifying us -- we have to discover it after-the-fact). The word that actually goes in is "baby jump suit". The next time we submit, "baby jump suits" goes in... Clearly subjective, depending on which hack approved the submission.
One can deduce that their approval process is manual. That means they probably have a bunch of $10/hr. hacks doing the grunt work. It's inconsistant.
I digress...
My point is that if you have people instead of systems, algorithms, and/or applications to do the tedious work, you have:
I don't think Yahoo! the corporate entity is aware of these goings-on. But given the clear inconsistancies that make Yahoo! difficult to work with, I think they're accountable nonetheless.
At the same time, if someone on a boat isn't helping keep it affloat, you don't sink the boat. So, in spite of Yahoo! needing to be slapped -- I'd rather see them slapped with a dose of "hey your products suck" than a bunch of lawsuits by money-grubbing lawyers.
My ZooLoo
Lawsuits filed solely to make money, banish the thought. Who would do such a despicable thing? Seriously though, I am glad someone is speaking out about this practice in the yahoo case, but really something should be done within the legal system to fix the problem as a whole, not just this symptom. One possible solution would be to have lawyers on both sides be paid a fixed rate by the state, which would fix some inequalities, although admittedly individual people might still be motivated by money to sue.
Philosophy.
Oh I though that's how lawsuits worked. Always.
So what else is new. They see a pile of money and want it. It is easier to sue than it is to make a product. Maybe if there are enough suits everyone will go out of business. But nobody will be harming anyone else. If Yahoo! is not putting in keywords, it is their own profits that are harmed.
It's seem that justice is no more a thing to keep society to a certain standard and give everybody a nice and predictable place to live. It's just a bussiness now, like fast food and diaper manufacturing.
"The legal issue would likely be whether the statements were actual imputations of a crime, or were 'rhetorical hyperbole,' essentially a statement of opinion, not of fact. The former could be considered libelous, while the latter could not."
Of course, being it's in a blog, the author, Eric Goldman, wiil no doubt stand up in court and claim it's just his opinion, no matter how vehement the statements were. This should prove a cautionary tale: just because you blog does not necessarily mean you can say anything you like. The standard restrictions apply, and if you step over the line, you're just as culpable as a newspaper editor or reporter.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
for some reason, it's not in the headline.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
"Even unmeritorious class action lawsuits are expensive to defend"
Assuming for a second that the quoted individual isn't full of it, why are any unmeritorious lawsuits expensive to defend? Don't courts do things like order one party to pay the other's legal fees in cases like that?
Counsel for the plaintiffs in a class-action suit may not receive any more than is actually distributed to the plaintiffs.
That's the classic scam: the defendents settle for $100 million, the plaintiffs' law firm get $95 million of it, $5 million is offered to the plaintiff class if they respond to request 20 pages of paperwork to apply for their $0.75 payout; a total of $120 thousand is actually distributed to the plaintiff class members and "their" lawyers pocket the balance.
Suggest it to your Congresscritters. The ABA and Trial Lawyers' Association will hate it, but if it ever sees daylight nobody will dare vote against it because (unlike a lot of tort reform) it doesn't take a dime from plaintiffs -- the ones they ABA and TLA use to justify their normal way of doing business.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Yes, I am aware there are problems with this also (loser can't pay, etc). But it is definately a start.
Typically of the kind of problem that arises when you rely on automated spell checking. This guy actually wanted to call them 'contortionists' not 'extortionists'. All very innocent you see.
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
It certainly wasn't meant to be funny.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I've often thought that lawyers are at the top of human food chain (at least in the US,) since no one is immune to lawsuits. To even defend oneself against such, one needs a lawyer. Regardless of merit or outcome, lawyers win, always.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
He made sure he could claim this as opinion. "I think these lawsuits are...." "I see this lawsuit as..." "I see that process as..." These are fairly obvious opinion statements, not statements of fact. If they were meant as statements of fact, he would not have prefaced them with "I think" and "I see". Instead they would read "These are..." "That is..." etc.
They can make this argument to defendants: settle with me for a fraction of your total expected defense.
This is otherwise known as the Michael Jackson defense.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Wow. That seems like a stunningly good idea. Wish I still had points to mod you up.
... could it have any down sides? If the class of people to distribute to is large enough, would the lawyers be able to fund themselves properly? (Probably ;))
My only question is
So any aggressive arguement is by default flawed?
I think your own "Aw Shucks" G Dubya-syle thinking could have a devastating effect.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
You're not the only one to notice this. It's not even a new phenomenon.
Charles Dickens wrote a book that's arguably a gigantic illustration of that point: people fight, but the lawyers always win. (I'm talking about Bleak House here, and for those who haven't read it, it's basically about a probate dispute over a large estate that drives a family apart; the punchline is at the end when one guy wins, he does so only to have the entire estate seized and sold off to pay the lawyers and court fees.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"wiil no doubt stand up in court"
What is that? Sublimimal advertisement?
When NetworkWorld's McNamara asks an opinion from an attorney, the guy quickly digs up two libel verdicts (1903, 1940) and one dismissal (1999).
... or juror.
The legal issue would likely be whether the statements were actual imputations of a crime, or were 'rhetorical hyperbole,' essentially a statement of opinion, not of fact. The former could be considered libelous, while the latter could not.
Of course, hyperbole is the eye of the beholder
In my opinion, today's average juror would look at Prof. Goldman's statement, the facts surrounding the class action suit, and conclude that a) it's a rhetorical hyperbole in common use, much like saying "I could just kill that kid", or b) that the attorneys suing Yahoo are in fact engaging in barratry for the sake of squeezing cash out of the defendant. This assumes no existing Yahoo advertisers slip into the jury box.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Fair comment or libel?
I think in order to be libellous, it has to be untrue.
What I'm saying is just because you make your arguement in a somewhat aggressive fashion, it doesn't mean your argument is automatically flawed.
Also, here is a link to an article discussing a Supreme Court desision pretty much on point where Justice Scalia calls it extortion.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
I wonder if he's heard of the RIAA or MPAA?
"They can make this argument to defendants: settle with me for a fraction of your total expected defense costs, and we're both better off (defendants save some defense costs, plaintiffs' lawyers grab some personal loot).'"
Rule 8.4 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct state that in order to maintain the integrity of of the legal profession, it is considered professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Furthermore, if this professor truely believes that this is extortion, he needs to report the lawyers to the appropriate legal authorities. Rule 8.3 states that a lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. Not reporting this behavior is in itself a violation of the law.
"Even unmeritorious class action lawsuits are expensive to defend, so the plaintiffs' lawyers can exploit those defense costs for their personal largesse."
That sentence doesn't make sense. What do you think is meant by "for their personal largesse"? Largesse doesn't make sense here. The plaintiff's lawyers can exploit those defense costs for their personal generosity? More likely, the writer meant "personal benefit".
Writing is like code that runs in your readers' heads. This code is buggy.
I'm more cynical on that. If this idea ever got critical mass & got sponsored *, you'd start seeing massive PSAs and a sudden saturation of anti-reform talking points in the media.
The "doesn't take a dime from plaintiffs" fact would be lost in the FUD. Everyone would have a vague sense of how a few bad, mean, greedy people were trying to "create roadblocks," "slash the quality of legal representation" and generally "make it harder" for them should they ever need to join forces with other victims of big, reckless theiving corporate interests & take legal action.
I'd be happy if I were proven wrong here, of course.
Pi Ran Out