Righthaven Defies Court In Domain Name Ruling

Hugh Pickens writes "Copyright troll Righthaven makes their money by coercing defendants of alleged copyright infringement into settling with them with threats of $150,000 in damages and forfeiture of the defendants' website domain names. Now EFF reports that Chief Judge Hunt of the federal court in Nevada, which is overseeing more than 200 Righthaven copyright cases, has dismissed Righthaven's merit-less claim to seize its victim's domain names. Righthaven contended that the mere hosting of any infringing material meant that the entire domain name was forfeit but the judge rejected that claim, explaining that the 'Court finds that Righthaven's request for such relief fails as a matter of law and is dismissed.' But now Righthaven has filed a new copyright case in Nevada federal court that not only demands forfeiture of the domain name but has asked the Court to 'order the surrender to Righthaven of all hardware, software, electronic media and domains, including the Domain used to store, disseminate and display the unauthorized versions of any and all copyrighted works.' The new complaint also asserts that Righthaven holds the 'exclusive rights' to Stephens Media news articles, despite the Strategic Alliance Agreement showing that Stephens Media retains these rights."

Comments

Proof Positive

[Moryath]

The fact that "Righthaven" are even allowed into court any more, in any jurisdiction, is proof positive that the justice system is broken.

Re:Proof Positive

[gabereiser]

haha, total win....

Re:Proof Positive

[poetmatt]

So you don't even believe in the justice system at all, even when this is an example of times when it actually *works*? wow. Should this just be judge, jury, executioner instead?

Even if Righthaven may be a copyright troll doesn't mean that shouldn't be determined by court. We do have a constitution you know.

Re:Proof Positive

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> The fact that "Righthaven" are even allowed into court any more, in any jurisdiction, is proof positive that the justice system is broken.

Wrong.

Although their lawyers may be sanctioned for something like this, depending on whether they have any meritorious legal arguments.

Re:Proof Positive

[Golddess]

Serious question. If someone "cries wolf" too often, why shouldn't they eventually be disallowed from suing others?

Of course, maybe what Righthaven is doing doesn't count as "crying wolf", in which case, my question becomes a hypothetical.

Re:Proof Positive

[tripleevenfall]

No, of course not. It's entirely possible for someone to cry wolf 500 times, and then later suffer a legitimate injustice.

Re:Proof Positive

[erroneus]

It takes a lot, but there have been cases where lawyers have found themselves disbarred after abusing the legal system too often. This, in my opinion, is just such a case. Making claims that cannot be proven, and worse, claims which can and have been disproven shows that this "legal professional" is reckless at the very least and most likely a lot worse.

Personally, I think organizations that exist for the purpose of pure intellectual property enforcement should be disallowed entirely. There is entirely too much trolling going on where patent, copyright and even trademark "defence" is concerned. Entirely too much and entirely inappropriate. There should be a law.

Re:Proof Positive

[UnknowingFool]

Yes but it has to be very extreme cases. The Righthaven suits are just beginning. Also there is a difference between filing suits that have no chance of winning and filing suits that have no merit. Righthaven is dangerously close to the latter.

Re:Proof Positive

[Jaysyn]

Yes, a vexatious litigant can be disallowed from filing suits, but it's pretty rare that it actually happens.

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack who?

Re:Proof Positive

[Nemesisghost]

I say let them continue to file. And at the same time donate to EFF & other organizations who are willing to fight them. The reason? Easy, ever time a copyright troll loses a case like this, is another nail in the coffin for broken copyright law.
If I was a copyright holder I'd start taking the fact that these guys are idiots seriously and try to find a way to stop them.

Re:Proof Positive

[Nickodeimus]

Exactly... and this is also exactly why such a thing as sanctions exist. If an entity abuses a court then they should be sanctioned as punishment.

Re:Proof Positive

[causality]

No, of course not. It's entirely possible for someone to cry wolf 500 times, and then later suffer a legitimate injustice.

It's entirely possible for them to think about that prior to crying wolf 500 times.

It's entirely possible for them to be held up as an example to others, a warning against those who might feel inclined to similarly cry wolf.

Particularly when their crying wolf is not a matter that's just between themselves and the judge, but involves the legal intimidation of innocents. All of these strong-arm tactics are over a relatively trivial matter like unauthorized copying, not gang violence or warfare or impending catastrophe.

So now they are following the latest trend and trying to go after domains and equipment. They're following in the footsteps of what the government is doing in the name of safety and anti-terrorism, methods they no doubt admire. That's the latest escalation, then? Copyright cases need a "loser pays" system, where the loser of a case has to pay all of the opposition's legal expenses (perhaps times 1.5). Remove the profit from being a copyright troll and embolden the recipients of these threats to insist that the cases go to court. That's the best long-term solution to this kind of company. It also addresses the apparent rarity of such reasonable judges as this one.

Re:Proof Positive

[postbigbang]

You're right. They're digging themselves a hole deep and wide enough that others are likely to fall into it as well. I'm guessing that they're about to get spanked pretty hard. If the judiciary is smart they'll stop them immediately before the hole gets wider. Giving them enough rope to hang themselves, while fun to watch, also can have a backlash produced by the tolerance of such a folly.

Re:Proof Positive

[tripleevenfall]

I'm not familiar with this word, "injust".

Re:Proof Positive

[poetmatt]

They opened a shitload of cases. Only lately are they getting proper scrutiny. It takes people a little while to open their eyes to this kind of abuse of the legal system.

If they keep it up, it's entirely possible that their lawyers could be sanctioned, but that's also for a judge to decide.

Re:Proof Positive

[Luckyo]

The entire point of functional, working justice system is that ANYONE, regardless of how deep in the wrong you think they are is allowed to bring their grievances to it.

Another merit of a functional justice system is that it also denies petitions of such parties AFTER considering them. Not before.

Re:Proof Positive

[afidel]

I'm thinking they are really pushing their luck filing a new case with claims that the same court has already dismissed as being unenforceable under law. These guys have already pissed this judge off, if they don't watch out he's likely to go after their license. The judge has already admonished them that using the federal circuit as a business office is not the intent of the law, trying to refile the same claims he has rejected in a similar case is really just asking to have the hammer brought down on their heads.

Re:Proof Positive

[Dishevel]

They have been heard. Many times.
The problem is that they have not been found by the courts as of yet to be a complete waste of the air they breathe.
They should have been disbarred long ago. The reason people hate lawyers is because it is lawyers that have allowed these people to continue to practice law.
There is NO reason for Righthaven to still exist. None.

Re:Proof Positive

[jonbryce]

Well in England, if you do that, you get listed as a vexatious litigant usually after the 5th or 6th time, which means you aren't allowed to sue anyone else.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk/AboutUs/Pages/VexatiousLitigants.aspx

Re:Proof Positive

[zildgulf]

We do NOT have a Constitutional right to sue everyone and anyone with frivolous lawsuits indefinitely. "Righthaven" has gone full nuts and filed a lawsuit that doesn't have a snowballs' chance in H*LL given the previous ruling, which, by my definition, is frivolous. When this lawsuit is shutdown and another even more grandiose lawsuit, not appeal, is filed by "Righthaven" comes to this court he should be slapped with a lifetime ban on filling ALL lawsuits in this court.

And yes, when the courts allow such frivolous lawsuits and SLAPP lawsuits to be filed (which are just as annoying), without challenge, these are indications that that specific court system is completely broken.

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't work in the United States of Dumbfuckistan.

Re:Proof Positive

[zildgulf]

Before or after the defendant must hire a lawyer and take off of work, to defend himself/herself dozen or hundreds of times over from a vexatious litigant? Usually it is after. This does NOT count when the vexatious litigant files dozens of ridiculously frivolous lawsuits and the court system ALLOWS him/her to withdraw the lawsuits before going forward.

If we followed your rules I would be allowed to sue everyone on Earth a dozen times each for a million of dollars for no good reason, clearly a mountain of frivolous lawsuits. Do you realize that the court system grinds to a halt while this mountain of lawsuits has to be processed by everyone in the system just to be denied? That would takes years to do that. Then I could do this strategically and repeatedly to impede any and every legitimate lawsuit. Now imagine a hundred people doing this to a civil court system in a major city. The entire civil court system would crash and blue screen just like Windows when it has rampant processes chewing up every bit of CPU time.

Re:Proof Positive

[Luckyo]

Your quarrel is with the US implementation of the system (which is massively flawed). Not with the principle, which is a cornerstone of Western justice system.

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't even believe in the justice system at all, even when this is an example of times when it actually *works*? wow. Should this just be judge, jury, executioner instead?

Interestingly, the judicial process is supposed to work all the time. So how much failure in the process are you willing to tolerate?The fact that you've gone from "broken judicial system" to "anarchy" in one sentence is indicative of your inability to defend a tolerance for a broken system. How about this - how broken a system would you be willing to tolerate, before declaring it unfit for democracy?

Re:Proof Positive

[lymond01]

Another merit of a functional justice system is that it also denies petitions of such parties AFTER considering them. Not before.

Exactly.

Judge: I've seen you here before, Righthaven. How is this case different than the last I judged?
Righthaven: It's not, Your Honor. Just hoping you'd have forgotten.
Judge: Thank you for corroborating my thoughts on the matter. Case dismissed. See you next time.

Re:Proof Positive

[A nonymous Coward]

A better definition would include penalties for losing, especially when the case is so obviously without merit because it cites nonexistent laws, cites a state law in a federal case, and includes points which have already been rejected by the very same judge.

I wouldn't mind them filing bogus case after bogus case, as long as they had to pay when they lost.

But to allow ANYONE to file without penalty for being a jackass is not a sign of a functional justice system.

Re:Proof Positive

[Imrik]

Except that you'd need trillions of dollars to pay the court fees to sue everyone on earth a dozen times each, plus when the lawsuits are shown to be without merit you should be required to pay legal fees and damages from the time required of the defendants.

Re:Proof Positive

[Tom]

You needed proof for that?

The idea of the justice system is to deliver fair and equal treatment based on the book of the laws.

The implementation of the justice system is to give the people the illusions of justice so they are less likely to kill the parasites that feed off the rest of society like vampires. Of course there is plenty of inofficial workarounds included for them, just in case they ever get in trouble with the law.

It's a fascinating construct, really. I can't stop being amazed at how much you can fuck people over before they start to realize what's going on. It's not new, either - we just have a generation of politicians, lawyers and such who're doing it more obvious than before.

Re:Proof Positive

[Moryath]

The problem there, is that you can disbar their lawyers all you want... but the fucktards at Righthaven will just hire another shyster lawyer.

Re:Proof Positive

[Moryath]

In other words, you'd have to be:

- The MafiAA
- Microsoft
- Sony
- Righthaven

Need I go on?

Re:Proof Positive

[platypussrex]

Someone above made the comment that if lawyers are disbarred, the company just hires more lawyers, and while that's true, what the judge should (and may well) do is to impose monetary sanctions on RIghthaven itself. No amount of disbarred lawyers will make that go away.

Re:Proof Positive

[Luckyo]

The requirement of effort to bring the case forward is obvious. However when you start limiting WHO can bring the grievance to attention, where do you draw the line?

History is full of examples where such limits were quickly subverted to serve various interests. Which is why it's much better to have a system with minimal penalties, and where anyone can bring a case forward, and suffer the inefficiency, rather then limit it and risk sinking into tyrannical justice system that only serves certain interests in a matter of a few decades.

Re:Proof Positive

[A nonymous Coward]

What the frack were you replying to? I argued that anyone should be allowed to file, as long as loser pays, so that the clowns would be self-limiting.

A system where anyone can file WITHOUT penalty is not functional.

Re:Proof Positive

[sjames]

In order to actually be working, the judge would need the ability to rule on matters of law before the defendant is even notified of the suit. That is, if something Righthaven is asking for would not happen even if everything they claim is perfectly true, it should be struck down as moot before the defendant has to bother with it. Otherwise, given the cost of being a defendant, even a successful one, it's not so much working as it is not failing completely.

Re:Proof Positive

[bigtrike]

You're assuming that the lawyers they're hiring to replace the original ones don't care about having jobs at any time in the future.

Re:Proof Positive

[sjames]

True, but it's about 500 times more likely that they are currently perpetrating an injustice than that they have suffered one.

It seems reasonable that by that point, they would have to go through a stringent preliminary procedure before being allowed to sue.

Re:Proof Positive

[sjames]

We supposedly have the same concept in the U.S. but Judges seem far more reluctant to impose it. IMHO, much too reluctant.

Re:Proof Positive

[Luckyo]

Problem is, where do you draw the penalty and how? In the current system, the penalty is actually rather decent in many countries - you're required to pay the reasonable costs of winner's litigation. In obviously frivolous filings, you also often have a right to file a complaint against that party and ask for additional compensation (i.e. lost wages).

But if you start handing out actual penalties, what will stop, say, a major company essentially sink all minor claims against it by lobbying for harsh enough punishment to deter filing?

Re:Proof Positive

[A nonymous Coward]

The penalty is simple and dead obvious: loser pays, and not just court costs, but every expense the winner incurred in fighting the case. It should apply to all cases, including government criminal prosecution ans small claims court.

A secondary help would be to require all such costs to be reported, and if any party spent more than (say, double) any other party, they automatically lose the case. This would prevent rich parties (including the government) from spending so much that they buy justice. But I think this would be unnecessary if we allowed investors in court cases; a poor party with an excellent case would probably be able to attract loans from investors looking for the other party to lose and pay them back, with interest.

Re:Proof Positive

[Svippy]

No, of course not. It's entirely possible for someone to cry wolf 500 times, and then later suffer a legitimate injustice.

Isn't the entire moral of Peter and the Wolf that you should not 'cry wolf' unless it is a legitimate issue, because then no one will care when it is real? Or did you miss that part?

Re:Proof Positive

[Slime-dogg]

So now they are following the latest trend and trying to go after domains and equipment. They're following in the footsteps of what the government is doing in the name of safety and anti-terrorism, methods they no doubt admire. That's the latest escalation, then? Copyright cases need a "loser pays" system, where the loser of a case has to pay all of the opposition's legal expenses (perhaps times 1.5). Remove the profit from being a copyright troll and embolden the recipients of these threats to insist that the cases go to court. That's the best long-term solution to this kind of company. It also addresses the apparent rarity of such reasonable judges as this one.

This is probably the best way to handle it. Dictate some sort of soft cap on lawsuits, by exponentially increasing the cost to file, and having that cost decay over time. This would handle the one time in the future that someone actually suffers injustice, but also eliminates the lawsuit-income business model.

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

If you commit a crime such as robbery are you on the hook for only the amount you stole?
Sounds similar to me.
If you rob banks 10 times and get caught 9 times but only have to return the loot, then the 10th time pays.
If you cry wolf 500 times, then are allowed to successfully blackmail someone by crying wolf the 501st time, then you've got a sustainable business model.

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

Righthaven should be made to reimburse all the counties, states and even federal government expenses for all cases heard so far, and moving forward - oh and at 2x actual cost.
Then, they should be banned from all future lawsuits, all lawyers working for them should be dis-barred and blacklisted for life.

Finally, they should be shipped to Cuba, to rot there for the rest of their lives.

Then and only then, will I believe the court / justice system is working.

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, because you used a derivative form of it. It's in the Merriam-Webster unabridged dictionary, so how is it my fault if your dictionary left out certain words?

Re:Proof Positive

[mwvdlee]

More likely Righthaven is going to cry wolf 500 times, drowning out some OTHER party that suffers a legitimate injustice.

Re:Proof Positive

[mldi]

Those buttered palms makes it difficult to push the button. Too slippery!

Re:Proof Positive

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

There's one thing you are mssing: the avarage person does not have a business model, based on crying "wolf".

Re:Proof Positive

[Dhalka226]

What's your point? That was a story; this is real life. The fact that it's excellent advice doesn't mean it's some sort of legal or even moral concept that must be adhered to.

911 paramedics, for example, are legally prohibited from refusing a call even if they know beyond all doubt that the person making the call is a fucking liar who does nothing but waste their time and put actually sick people at danger. Why? Because even assholes sometimes do get sick, and the fact that they're assholes doesn't mean they don't deserve help.

In the justice system, there are two possibilities. One is that your lawsuit is frivolous, meaning without any legal merit. This is seldom declared, but if it is there are legal avenues for sanctions up to and including disbarment. They're not used enough, but they're there. If it's not, meaning there is legal merit to your claims even if you are ultimately ruled against, why should it matter that you're 0 for 500? Attempt 501 might be a winner.

In context, Righthaven's claims for seizure of the domain names was rejected -- not their lawsuit in its entirety, which means the judge believes there's no legal concept supporting seizing the domains but not that their lawsuits are, themselves, without enough merit to be heard. If they're fucking with a federal judge, that's an awfully dangerous game that these people want no part of and he can and should lay the smack down on them. But it has nothing to do with the merits of their overall suits, only what they're seeking. Of course it should be heard, and if they're right this time, there should be justice done (yes, for both parties--a judgment that cripples somebody's life over the text of a newspaper article is hardly justice).

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

No. That's the entire moral of Aesop's fable of the boy who cried "wolf". Peter and the Wolf was a composition by Prokofiev and as far as I know doesn't have a moral.

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire point of functional, working justice system is that ANYONE, regardless of how deep in the wrong you think they are is allowed to bring their grievances to it.

Another merit of a functional justice system is that it also denies petitions of such parties AFTER considering them. Not before.

That's fine in theory, but we're not living in a magical land of rainbows and unicorns. A functional justice system costs tax payer money, which, in case you didn't notice, we're bit short of.

Its naive to think that there should be ZERO bounds in activities that consume resources, justice or otherwise.

Re:Proof Positive

[compro01]

Nope, only California has a vexatious litigant law.

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking they are really pushing their luck filing a new case with claims that the same court has already dismissed as being unenforceable under law. These guys have already pissed this judge off, if they don't watch out he's likely to go after their license. The judge has already admonished them that using the federal circuit as a business office is not the intent of the law, trying to refile the same claims he has rejected in a similar case is really just asking to have the hammer brought down on their heads.

A simple solution appears to me, counter-sue for all of THEIR hardware, software, electronic media and domains. And then civil-forfeiture all the possessions of the owners of the company as profits from a corrupt enterprise, use the proceeds to pay the legal fees of everyone being sued.

Re:Proof Positive

[Luckyo]

Point of major parts of foundation is not to function as walls and ceilings. You can change as you go, adapting to conditions you list. Nontheless certain cornerstones need to remain absolute.

Refer to: US constitution.

Re:Proof Positive

[greenbird]

So you don't even believe in the justice system at all, even when this is an example of times when it actually *works*?

It worked? So those poor innocent people are given the choice of paying 1tens of thousands on lawyers to defend themselves or paying blood money to lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits whose sole intention is to extort money from people. That's a working legal system to you?

Re:Proof Positive

[Dan541]

If they cry wolf 500 times then what ever happens to them isn't an injustice. 500 is allot of victims, you can't receive an injustice at that point.

Re:Proof Positive

[doccus]

re: "The fact that it's excellent advice doesn't mean it's some sort of legal or even moral concept that must be adhered to" er..it's a fable.. that's EXACTLY what they're about I know it's late in this thread, but i just had to say this...

Re:Proof Positive

[zildgulf]

When I was younger I used to say "such and such" was impossible, no longer do I say that phrase often for the committed often find a way. With a sufficiently motivated and funded organization full of vengeful lawyers (RIAA for example) it can happen. They will find a way to submit the global lawsuit as a reverse class action and find a judge that is corrupt enough to make it stick. This is exactly what is happening with the copyright cases except they are targeting and ambiguous group of what the RIAA's suspect are copyright infringers so the courts are OK with this The whole situation is absolutely ridiculous with lawyers running amok extorting money from the average citizen, who doesn't have a lawyer in his back pocket, who may or may not have done anything wrong.

Re:Proof Positive

[cyber-vandal]

No.

Re:Proof Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

Cry wolf 500 hundred times (i.e. threaten grievous financial harm 500 times), and not be thrown into jail as a danger to the public? That's a failure right there.

Re:Proof Positive

[KingBenny]

i think that is not a question of should or shouldn't , it's a matter of will happen if you do according to current psychology.
and by that i dont mean the way its described but the way it's happening

Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Zeek40]

Seriously, they need to start disbarring lawyers who repeatedly bring these meritless lawsuits to court. That's the only thing that's going to stop them from continuing to use the legal system as their own personal slot machine.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[thisnamestoolong]

This. We need tort reform in a big way. Lawyers and plaintiffs that bring frivolous lawsuits to court should have to repay the defendant for legal fees and lost wages. Heavy punitive damages should be levied against the bastards for abusing the court system. Lawyers who still don't get it ought to be disbarred permanently. That would end this in a hurry.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[NevarMore]

Seriously, they need to start dismembering lawyers who repeatedly bring these meritless lawsuits to court. That's the only thing that's going to stop them from continuing to use the legal system as their own personal slot machine.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[DJLuc1d]

Oh man, that would be the best.... like when Jack Thompson got disbarred in Florida.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[dwillden]

Or just start actually enforcing the existing penalties for filing fraudulent suits and claims. Such penalties already exist, but getting the various state's to enforce them isn't always easy.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[tripleevenfall]

I agree, but we will never get meaningful tort reform while the trial lawyers control one of the two political parties.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "disbarring" you mean "shooting repeatedly in the face," I'm down!

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Schmorgluck]

Indeed, the notions of abuse of process and malicious procsecution exist for a reason. IANAL, and I don't know which one applies to Righthaven's actions. Maybe both.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[DurendalMac]

Just one?

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Reverand Dave]

How do you figure they only control one of the two parties? In all reality, they control both parties and all 3 branches.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, the lawyers actual do control both the Solicitor Party and the Corporate Party.

Too bad neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party ever panned out as a viable third option.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

I remember when Jack Thomspon got barred from it in a few areas.
And would most likely get barred in even more places given his popularity.
The world rejoiced.
Now he is just a mere annoyance.

Anyone wants a good laugh for the day, have a nice read of his wiki Jack Thompson

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

I guess somehow judges don't get the fact that people can use them as a means to commit crimes--like, you know, theft.

It's funny, I'm pretty sure lawyers have known that from the very beginning...

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[TheDarkMaster]

The best idea of the whole year

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Jesus_666]

How about this: If the lawsuit was found to be willfully frivolous the full charges asked for by the plaintiff are leveled... against the plaintiff. Sue someone for a million Dollars for no apparent reason? Perhaps the court believes you that it was a mistake. Do it again? Congratulations, you just made someone rich. If the bar is set high enough only court-as-a-business-model outfits should be affected.

That should cut down on unreasonably high damages, too. After all, you don't want to risk losing that kind of money if your case isn't waterproof.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of trial lawyer political donations go to Democrats. Not to say that the GOP is entirely clean; but when somebody submits a tort reform bill, just watch which party screams the loudest. It's not the Republicans.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Capt. Skinny]

I think the problem lies in defining "frivolous lawsuit" or "abusing the court system" with some degree of formality. It's easy for us laymen to point to an existing or historical case and say that one is frivolous, but what standards for frivolousity should the court adhere to in making these decisions? Any such standard would have to be quite complex to account for the many caveats and nuances of arbitrary tort cases, further complicating the court system. And how would you feel if the suit you brought against someone who wronged you fell on the wrong side of an ill-defined frivolousity standard? Or your case ended up before a judge who identified with the defendant's position and indignantly ruled that your case was frivolous?

Tort reform shouldn't involve piling even more avenues for punishment and abuse on top of the mess we already have.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[lennier1]

I'm sure Dick Cheney could find something in his timetable.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Solandri]

Just give them their own medicine. Trial lawyers always claim that being able to file lawsuits against people/companies in other professions is necessary to keep them honest. So make it legal to sue lawyers/law firms for filing frivolous lawsuits. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[A nonymous Coward]

All you need is loser pays. Let them file all the bogus lawsuits they want, as long as they have to pay all court costs and all costs incurred by the winner, including legal costs, time off from work, every expense which was a direct result of having to defend oneself.

They'd quickly learn not to file bogus cases.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Svartalf]

Here's a hint: They don't control one of the two parties...

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should start with the Number 1 member, Mr. Happy.

Nathan

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[MickyTheIdiot]

The vast majority of corporate donations go to Republicans. Not to say that the Democrats are entirely clean; but when somebody submits a bill that curbs corporate power, just watch which party screams the loudest. It's not the Democrats.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[sabt-pestnu]

That only works if you fill the mouth with salt and sew the lips shut.

Or is that zombies? Well, we can always try it and find out.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[sjames]

It's a mistake to try to draw a definitive line in a gray area. Instead, draw TWO lines. One marks the point we are certain an abuse has happened and the other marks where we are certain it has not.

I would think that if a judge tells you that you cannot be awarded X in this sort of case as a matter of law and you turn around and file the same sort of case demanding X+Y in the very same court, you're over the abuse line.

They're in a court of law, not a preschool. Adults are supposed to know when NO means "not ever" rather than "not until you ask for the one hundredth time".

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brings new imagery to the term "One-Armed Bandit" does it not?

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the defendant should have the option of asking that matters be decided by single combat....by the lawyers. In really
important cases (above a certain dollar amount) it should be combat to the death. That would curtail meritless lawsuits for sure.

Re:Where's the 3-strikes law for shitty lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I support the 12 cent solution myself..1 shot to the forehead. and with that, the world get a little better with one less shyster

With/without prejudice?

[Shoten]

If the original claim was dismissed "without prejudice," that doesn't preclude Righthaven from starting it all over again. If that's what has happened, then what they're doing isn't defiance of the court as much as trying to buy their way out of a bluff, proverbially speaking. Granted, it's not too likely that they'll succeed, but the idea of asking for all the "offending" infrastructure along with the domain name is to put a Sword of Damocles over the heads of the defendants so that if they lose, they'll lose everything.

Re:With/without prejudice?

[tripleevenfall]

Righthaven's business model (extortion/copyright trolling) relies on the ongoing threat of forfeiture of IP, domains, or other assets.

Having an open lawsuit is essential to their business so they can point to it and say to their mark, "See, we're litigating this right now. You could be next." If one gets dismissed, they have to just file another one in a different way.

Re:With/without prejudice?

[skr95062]

Except that if the offending party is hosted, then the server is not the property of the offender. This would be allowing the troll to take the property of a third party. It is highly doubtful the judge would ever allow it. Besides where is the DMCA notification and why hasn't the judge smacked them down over this?

Re:With/without prejudice?

[TheSpoom]

Point me to the statutes that allow the winners of a civil copyright suit to seize the physical hardware of the losers. Let's just say I am doubtful such a statute exists, or that there's much in the way of precedence that supports such an idea.

They're just trying to make an example out of the defendants with no regard for the actual laws.

McBride?

[SniperJoe]

Is Righthaven run by Darl McBride? Perhaps he's bankrolling the company. It just has that sort of flavor to it. The other thing I'll say is that from what I've seen, there are few things more ill-advised than defying a court.

Thank god IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next, a pound of flesh?

its like the record companies

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't pay for that 0.99 song now give me your house.

Re:its like the record companies

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the good old USA!

Trolls Trolling Trolls

[skuzzlebutt]

Righthaven is the copyright arm of the Las Vegas Review Journal...to give you an idea of the nuttiness we have to endure here in SinCity, keep in mind that the newspaper vehemently and viciously supported Her Wackiness Sharron Angle for Senate last year but then, in a grand showing of just how much they love their own wacky brand of libertarianism, sued her as a part of the Righthaven IP trolling campaign while continuing to donate money to her and devote editorial space to her campaign on a daily basis.

It had a strange beauty...like watching two warthogs fighting over a rotting squirrel carcass while mating.

Re:Trolls Trolling Trolls

[JasoninKS]

"...like watching two warthogs fighting over a rotting squirrel carcass while mating." Yeah...like that's an image I needed in my head.

Re:Trolls Trolling Trolls

[ilsaloving]

So apparently "two warthogs fighting over a rotting squirrel carcass while mating" is considered Interesting to slashdotters.

Now I understand the real reason for the whole 'living in the parents basement' thing. What better place to stash your collection of bullwhips and leather chaps?

Re:Trolls Trolling Trolls

[inode_buddha]

You could always watch Margaret Thatcher take it all off just for you, big boy. I'm sure that would be better than watching this lawsuit stuff.

Re:Trolls Trolling Trolls

[gangien]

Neither of them are libertarian.

Bullies

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullies in schools lead to Zangief Kid and columbine.

Bullies in tech lead to... anonymous?

The owners of copyright troll companies are going to wake up one day and find their names added to pedophile directories, their houses listed as dump sites, and their likenesses on federal no-fly watch lists.

Re:Bullies

[bluefoxlucid]

No, Columbine was something different. Those kids were insane. Casey Haynes is a freaking hero; he won't take shit ever again and he won't crack ever again. Next kid gets hit because he needs it; he won't be coming to school with machine guns and mowing the whole class down.

Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this troll and/or its lawyer can get disbarred by a Federal judge; then it won't be able to practice law anyplace in the US.

Re:Great!

[UnknowingFool]

First there us nothing in the rules of the bar that you can't file bad lawsuits especially when your clients wish to proceed otherwise. Second lawyers are licensed by state. To practice in other states, lawyers apply for temporary admission if they happen to have a single case or have to take another bar exam.

Re:Great!

[nosferatu1001]

Yes there is. Knowingly submitting cases which you know have no merit can lead to disbarrment.

You are allowed to say "no" to a client, and recuse yourself.

*note: not a lawyer, but work for a firm with a large number of them

Re:Great!

[UnknowingFool]

Depends on your definition of merit. In all the cases the defendants did use copyrighted material. Most of the uses fall under fair use. That's not the problem as Righthaven can make arguments against it. They won't win but doesn't mean the suit is without merit. The problem is that Righthaven may not have standing to sue and has been told that. And yes you are allowed to say no to a client and the client can take their money elsewhere. The question is whether you want to take the case.

Re:Great!

[nosferatu1001]

If you're in the firing line of a judge who has already told you NO and yet you're filing for the exact same remedy (or, the same plus even MORE which is on the same line), you know it has no merit.

Re:Great!

[UnknowingFool]

There are multiple filing which should not be confused. The lawsuits that Righthaven have filed are about whether defendants have violated copyrights. Within each lawsuit the plaintiff and defendant can file motions. In this case RightHaven vs Thomas DiBiase, Righthaven filed a motion to seize DiBiase's domain name. Part of the suit, both DiBiase and RightHaven filed motions to dismiss different parts of the lawsuit. DiBiase wanted the judge to dismiss Righthaven's request to seize their domain name and RightHaven wanted the judge to dismiss DiBiase's counterclaims.

As mentioned above, DiBiase’s motion is limited to a request that the Court dismiss Righthaven’s demand for an order transferring DiBiase’s website domain name to Righthaven and for attorney’s fees.

The judge agreed with DiBiase about the domain name seizure and disagreed with RightHaven about the counterclaims.

None of this, however, has addressed whether the suit has merit. In new cases, RightHaven again has made a motion to the judge. The judge will probably be pissed that they made such a motion again; however, it still does not reflect whether RightHaven's case has merit. There is a difference between merit and remedy as remedy is what you expect should you win; it says nothing about whether you should win.

If anyone...

[vistapwns]

ever deserved a friendly 10 gigabit DDOS from anonymous, these guys are it.

Re:If anyone...

[Anonymous Coward]

No point. Their business is in the legal system, not online. Taking down their placeholder website won't affect them in the slightest. If anything, you should fsck up their fax lines.

Barratry?

[EQ]

Or Contempt - when will either of those be used against the lawyers in Righthaven, who apparently disregard the judge, and the rulings, and the law.

Re:Barratry?

[Phantom Gremlin]

I haven't studied the case in enough detail to have an opinion on whether there is barratry or contempt. But I will opine that you don't want to piss off a Federal Judge. This isn't traffic court. This isn't a smart move by Righthaven.

HAHAHAHAHAH

[unity100]

Once you let it go, it devolves - see, private corporations/copyright trolls are already at the point of making laws out of their own ass, circumventing even the usual custom of buying them through the puppet parliaments via lobbying corporations ..

"hosting of any infringing material meant that the entire domain name was forfeit" says the guys. they also claimed hardware, software, everything. next, they may be claiming that engaging in hosting infringing material should cost your car.

The law is too slow

[Anonymous Coward]

And too prone to miss justice. Where's the snipers when you need them?

Disbarring a troll

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Maybe this troll and/or its lawyer can get disbarred by a Federal judge

I don't like copyright trolls.

But the idea of having an actual troll who has passed the bar...

is kind of awesome.

Maybe it's this one.

Creative Commons et al

[Anonymous Coward]

Righthaven is just doing its part to help kill traditional content created by producers clinging to their old business model for dear life.

When the only content that can be safely shared is freely sharable content ... we all win; mission accomplished.

Time is Nigh

[Anonymous Coward]

It is seriously time someone did something about companies like this once and for all . It would be nice to see them locked up for a time maybe 5 years with no early release the company forced to close and share their profits out with the people they have conned so far and as stated above their legal bed partners thrown out and totally disbarred for good with all employees barred from working in the legal profession ever again .

But i also like the idea of getting them all on the paedophile lists and the no fly lists that should scupper them completely and get word round to other copyright trolls this is what happens when you start doing this crap .

Thank You for Smoking

[repetty]

This reminds me of a bit of dialog from the movie "Thank Your for Smoking":

Joey Naylor: Dad, why is the American government the best government?
Nick Naylor: Because of our endless appeals system.

Any day now...

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be a court-room shooting -- by the judge!

Seriously, how in-bad-faith-ey can these fucks get before the Law Man decides that enough is enough?

Even more impressed than usual

[fmachado]

Fellow North Americans,

    How can you ever allow this to happen? The least a court can do is to disbar the lawyers, followed by a class action from all the offended to the amount of 10X the amount demanded by RightRaven. It would even be in the interest of the justice since a LOT less "adventurers of the new judicial business model" (MAFIA?) would be interested in losing all their possesions, including the underwear.

    There has to have a way to rebalance the court system in USA or else there will be all kind of problems. Justice can't be a weapon against competition, even less against potential customers.

    I made a proposition once that the plaintiff should have to make a deposit of at least half the value demanded and if they lose, that money would go the defendant to pay defense costs and if something is left, half would be donated to charity, half back to the plaintiff. I foresee that only very meritful claims would ever arrive at civil court because the risk of losing. Seems crazy, but less crazier than actual system that only tilts to big corporations or the bullies. The judge would need to make some factor to preserve the little guy (like a 1:100 or 1:1000 deposit proportion) so the big one loses more.

    The other alternatives are: troll lawyers hunting season; civil disobedience (thousands of sites doing similar things hosted on russia servers, better yet with disposable domain names and/or some very sarcastic ones); voting right next time. Every one of this has some drawbacks, but alternative 1 would be the funniest if made legal. The most effective (and harder) is the last one.

Flávio
CNOPEBR21

PS: If the hunting season gets approved I expect to be invited to the party as an observer :)

Re:Even more impressed than usual

[Machtyn]

The problem I see in your proposition is that the small guys who really do have a case will have to take out loans or gather donations/credits to foot that bond. Granted, if you have a case, doing so may be justified, but it is an added burden.

Re:Even more impressed than usual

[fmachado]

That's what the 1:100 or 1:1000 (or whatever ratio) ratio for the deposit should be for. US$ 10000.00 for a possible income of 10,000,000 seems acceptable to me. Since actual court system is already a casino, why not take it literally and transform it on a bet?

And it can be temporary, until someone figure how to fix the laws to not allow this abuse.

Can the EFF get them for Malicious Prosecution?

[MikeRT]

The tort of Malicious Prosecution comes in when no reasonable lawyer would believe that the law supports a case they have brought and the case has caused clear damage to the victims. The EFF should consider this route since Righthaven does not have legally valid ownership of any of Stephens Media's works. Therefore I would be surprised if they had a reasonable legal basis on which to bring suit...

What plaintiffs like Righthaven don't get...

[bmo]

Is that the only thing that keeps people from shooting each other is the court system.

If you remove the trust that society places in the court system for dispensing significant amounts of justice, then courts are no longer the barrier between people with weapons.

Don't say it doesn't happen, because it happens all over the world.

Go ahead guys, keep abusing the system. First ones against the wall and all that.

I feel like I am living in France in 1788 and we are all arguing over mouldy bread and bad wine.

--
BMO

Re:What plaintiffs like Righthaven don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. there are a lot of politicians, lawyers, businessmen, judges (esp. 5 Supremes), who are eroding most peoples trust in rule of law way past any reasonable limits. once recent supreme court decision allows district attorneys to essentially avoid all problems (ie fines and jail time) that can arise as a result of prosecutorial misconduct. They can deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence, and when caught, avoid any consequences for ruining people lives. Its starting to feel like a bad "mad max" remake without a nuclear holocaust or leather chaps.

Re:What plaintiffs like Righthaven don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the only thing that keeps people from shooting each other is the court system"

Correct. In the same way that politics, irritating as it is, is how we settle differences without (mostly) violence. Destroy the trust in either, as RIghthaven is on the one hand and numerous politicians on the other, and people are left with only "other options."

Something is Wrong with this Picture.

[MarkvW]

If you've got a judgment rendered in state court, the fed courts won't let you re-present the same case in federal court. The general doctrine is called abstention, and the particular variant is called the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

If they're jerking the same people around over the same subject matter, the federal judge will eat their face.

Start up the sanction motions!

Re:Something is Wrong with this Picture.

[jrumney]

My understanding is that this time it is different people, but using the same tactics that have already been ruled out in other cases brought by Righthaven. Expect early dismissal and possible sanctions for wasting the court's time.

This is part of a much larger problem

[Morgaine]

... the fact that "suing as a business plan" is allowed at all.

When lawsuits are allowed to provide a revenue stream beyond verified actual damages plus reasonable expenses, they can be abused. And so they are abused, because profit is not restrained by ethics.

Morgaine.

thompson?

[ganjadude]

Kind of like jack thompson, finally got disbarred and banned from bringing suit after all his videogame failures

mud anyone?

[Flipstylee]

I agree with the first thread posted, let the mud slinging begin. Back in the days of our forefathers, (USA, not US), common sense would ring forth and that turning sound you hear would not exist, because we've long since entered a state of capitolism so deep, no jagged
gripping claw can climb us back out.

We need another revolution i think, and all of them have been at our doorstep for far to long.

Just my opinion on the matter,
forgive my english even though it is my primary,
i must take haste in speaking the words of good conscience,
we as a people must do for our own, and leave everyone else to do the same.

This WAS the dream.

Lying to the court?

[gnasher719]

From what I have read, Righthaven didn't actually aquire any copyrights. They aquired the right to sue for copyright violations. Which means they don't actually own any copyrights. Which means that when they sue for copyright infringement, they are actually lying because they have no copyrights that are infringed on. And they most know this, because the previous court told them off for exactly that reason.

I am wondering where the point would be reached where suing someone who you _know_ didn't do what you accuse them off would be criminal.

Re:Lying to the court?

[mpe]

From what I have read, Righthaven didn't actually aquire any copyrights. They aquired the right to sue for copyright violations. Which means they don't actually own any copyrights.

Sounds like they are in effect a "shell corporation" specifically to allow some other entity/ies to sue without risk of any counter suits.

Re:Lying to the court?

[Derekloffin]

I think it is. It's called perjury as far as I know. Of course, someone actually has to bring the charge up.

Re:Lying to the court?

[rahvin112]

They are a shell corporation created by lawyers and only employing those lawyers. They are also launching suits without the authority to do so. See what they are trying to do is sue without exposing the Las Vegas Journal to counter damages. So they set this up as a shell corporation, then LRJ sold the rights to sue to RightHaven. The problem is that under copyright law you can't sue if you don't own the copyrights. But if Righthaven is only legal representation for LRJ then the LRJ would be liable for damages. But the suits as filed say RightHaven owns the copyright.

What needs to happen is that two lawsuits need to be filed. One against Righthaven for not having the legal authority to pursue these suits, an out in the suit needs to be put in allowing RH out of the suit if they admit they are only legal representatives for the LRJ and can provide evidence of such. Then once said evidence is acquired a suit needs to be launched against the LRJ that seeks the entire assets of the company in damages. This action will successfully penetrate this shell corp play and expose the real culprits behind these suits to action. If it can be shown in the first suit that RH acted alone and duped the LRJ into this scam then you file motions to pierce the corporate veil of RH and take the investors and owners of RH to the cleaners.

Unless you go after the perpetrators of this and their assets then it won't do you any good. You need to bankrupt the people behind this as an example. Then you need to disbar the lawyers that came up with it. This entire thing is a travesty of justice.

Capitalism: You're doing it wrong.

[neoevans]

Forget the legal problems with a company solely dedicated to luring other companies into court, why is Righthaven even allowed to be a company? I'm all for capitalism, but if selling sex (something both natural and legal on it's own) isn't legal, how is intentionally trying to harm other companies and their ability to turn a profit? This is the corporate equivalent of parking a van outside an elementary school with the words "free candy" spray painted on the side.

Not even close

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not even close to the semi-legal extortion that copyright infringement cases appear to be. This sames of hubris, fraud and overwhelming greed.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

What The Fuck are They Smoking ???

Not Really

[IBitOBear]

(1) people get shot all the time...

(2) the reason _I_ don't shoot people is because it is _rude_ to do so. I don't need a god, or the court, or any other "threat from above" to realize that if everybody went around shooting everyone, then we would all waste all our time trying not to get shot, and that would be anathema to the entire idea of civilization.

Re:Not Really

[bmo]

1. You missed the point entirely. So much so you've ignored thousands of years of human society and the results of what happens when it breaks down. Courts that do not work for the people in general are a breakdown in society.

2. If there was no way for you to get redress for grievances, you'd shoot 'em. Because this is the way grievances are dealt with when they cannot be dealt wit by peaceful means (courts). This is why shooting wars over the breakdown of society are called revolutions. I didn't mention France of 1788 (just 1 year shy of 1789) for nothing.

This leads me to speculate that you are either willfully ignorant of history, and you should sue your teachers for never impressing basic concepts, or you slept through all of your classes, or you're trolling. You pick.

--
BMO

George Riddick is worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of copyright trolls - just google "George Riddick Slashdot" - this douchebag (Riddick) outdoes Righthaven. This salad-tossing son of a bitch tried to shake me down for $200K & I told him to go fuck himself. There's even a site & a forum discussing Riddick's extortion tactics.

Copyright trolls like Righthaven & Riddick are the lowest scum on earth (well, next to that bastard using his neighbor's open WiFi to download kiddie porn). Judges generally take a disliking to douchebags who try to use the court to generate the sole income for their businesses.

No you have "missed the point entirely"

[IBitOBear]

Most societies function _despite_ their system of jurisprudence not because of it.

On a day-to-day basis do you feel guided or governed by your overlords? Is there a cop holding your hand from the trigger moment by moment? Is there a guy making sure you _never_ speed, and _do_ you never speed?

The jurisprudence system is the lane-gutters of society not its founding force. When it goes wrong makes a right mess, and it isn't wholly unnecessary, but it only punishes after the fact. Few people, in the heat of the moment, actually stop mid-draw and decide not to shoot because of the potential sentence.

Lots of people _believe_ in the "deterrent effect", but observable evidence suggests strongly that it is far less a factor in the daily lives of both law abiders and scofflaws alike.

Just like you, moment by moment the reason most people don't steal, kill, maim, lie, or tort is because they have empathy. They can put themselves in the other guy's place, and that empathic modeling tells them that their actions are wrong.

Only those who lack empathy, or suffer under exigent circumstance, break the social contract of "you don't X me and I won't X you".

If they lack empathy, the law will only stay their hand till they expect the reward to outweigh the risk, the law _delays_ at best, and sometimes that best _is_ good enough.

If they are in exigent circumstance then the law will have little to no impact whatsoever.

This is all demostrated quite clearly by the existence of crime and tort. Any denial of that is just that, denial pure and simple.

===

The other way you missed the point is that the original point of this whole page of commentary is based in "civil law" which, even if it breaks down, has little direct bearing on the social order. Wholly corrupt societies continue to function, they just have a function predicated on bribes and corruption. We view it as less functional because it is far more intimate. It doesn't scale well. But fully one third of the world lives in a civilly corrupt, indeed civilly bankrupt social order.

Software patent trolls and misuse of civil proceedings will not lead to civil bankruptcy as it will be proceeded by economic bankruptcy.

The bad actors will all sue each other out of existence and take the legitimate businesses with them and the market will move on. The U.S.A. will become an economic also-ran for a while, then Life Will Go On. It always does.

Or the court will develop a "high immune response" to these types of cases, and people, and the law or the body of precedent will change.

But once you catch a cold the fever has to run its course.

We have caught a bad case of "idea patents". It's in the form of software patents, which should be in copyright matters not patent matters. Whenever any organic fluid ends up in the wrong place you get sick. Same thing for the law.

We are _nowhere_ sick enough yet to get our legal antibodies really rolling.

Foretelling doom is way out of line here, and so is imagining that a legal system collapse would be a social collapse.

Everybody _hates_ anarchy, they'll live under despotism to avoid anarchy. Even "anarchists" hate anarchy, they are in love with the idea of anarchy where everybody still gets fed and there is someone to help keep the "other anarchists" off their damn lawn.

So no. All in all, the world functions because of manners not wrath from above, be it legal or theological.

Law is a byproduct of society, not a creator or protector of it. It starts out helpful and then becomes toxic if you make too much of it or it doesn't get cleaned out regularly. Think lactic acid in the muscles. You need it in small doses, its a vital element in the process, it is _entirely_ unavoidable even if you try to eliminate it from the process it will show up anyway, and when you get to much you get all muscle-bound and you freeze up. Once the swelling goes down you learn not to overreach that way again.

Yes, that was thick with analogy. But it is true analogy.

Re:No you have "missed the point entirely"

[bmo]

tl;dr

Argument by analogy fails against the reality. In particular, the Middle East, where people are being shot at by their governments because the people have decided that the governments no longer serve them. Some are firing back, and the reason why more do not is that they physically lack the guns.

Foretelling doom when governments no longer represent the people is not only logical, but proven. This problem with patents and copyrights is just a symptom of a much larger problem: that a certain class does not give a shit about the rest of society.

Society will take its rights back, some day. If not by the system, then by force. It happens all the time.

--
BMO

ripoffs by lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds as if these people need a severe reality adjustment. What they used to call in country music an "attitude adjustment." Glad to supply this, if someone will send me the names and addresses and a retainer for my lawyer.
A similar case in the UK just got squashed. But it also means that a person trying to sfeguard his own rights when they get ripped off by the big boys is just plain SOL. WOuld be glad to provide an attitude adjustment for the "big boys"--those with the money for the lawyers--in this case.