Slashdot Mirror


Righthaven Loses Again

Hugh Pickens writes "Righthaven, the Las Vegas copyright troll, won't be collecting any damages from a man it once branded as a copyright infringer but instead must pay the man's legal fees of $34,045. US District Judge Philip Pro awarded the fees in the case of Kentucky message board poster Wayne Hoehn, finding that Righthaven didn't have standing to sue him due to the Review-Journal maintaining control of the column [and that] Hoehn was protected by the fair use doctrine. This is the second attorney's fee award against Righthaven. These are likely just the tip of the iceberg, with prevailing defendant Thomas DiBiase asking for $199,250 while the Democratic Underground will likely seek a fee award of many hundreds of thousands of dollars after Righthaven was dismissed from that suit for lack of standing. The bottom line for Righthaven is that so far it has not won a single lawsuit of 275 filed since 2010."

119 comments

  1. 0 for 275? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bottom line for Righthaven is that so far it has not won a single lawsuit of 275 filed since 2010.

    But how many smaller blogs, websites, etc have settled because they couldn't afford it if they fought back and didn't win?

    1. Re:0 for 275? by CaptainInnocent · · Score: 2

      That's why we need more companies like Google. Companies that are willing to take patent trolls and other bad companies to court for the common good. Google is probably the only company that fights against patents, copyright and other evil things for the greater good.

    2. Re:0 for 275? by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, we don't need companies battling things out in court. We need to change the laws so that routes for scams like this are eliminated wholesale.

    3. Re:0 for 275? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I wonder if legal settlements should come with a legally mandated double your money back clause. If the plaintiff's case goes to court with somebody else and they get shot down either based on law or based on facts specific to the plaintiff (such as they don't actually own those rights), they have to make everyone they extorted whole.

    4. Re:0 for 275? by stms · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's that and there's that fact that we need to make it so winning in a courtroom isn't just about how much money you can spend on lawyers.

    5. Re:0 for 275? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      You can appeal?

    6. Re:0 for 275? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      But how many smaller blogs, websites, etc have settled because they couldn't afford it if they fought back and didn't win?

      They get to be sacrificial lambs in that wonderful world of litigation. Perhaps if the civil justice system had an automatic remedy system for those that settled when bigger guns tromped on a complainant with an invalid case, it might go some distance not only to righting such wrongs but in making those thinking of using the legal system in such a fashion think twice. But no, this is a system designed by lawyers for lawyers, and the odds of these crooks even being disbarred are pretty low.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think what the original poster meant to say 'how many smaller blogs will be suing in small claims courts across the country to get their money back'.

    8. Re:0 for 275? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      That would be a good step, but even if we do change the laws, there are still thousands of stupid patents and copyrights out there already, which will still cause billions in complete waste.

      Maybe set up a public review board. If apple wants to sue Samsung over making a rectangular computing device with a button, they need to have the patent reviewed, and anyone who wants to submit arguments against it, say google, can. If the patent or copyright doesn't pass review, no lawsuit. If it does, that cannot be considered in the lawsuit (IE, it cannot be "the review board proves this is a valid patent with no prior art!").

    9. Re:0 for 275? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Once you've signed a settlement, what's there to appeal? That's the issue. Yes, those that go all the way to court against crooked bastards like Righthaven certainly have no lack of remedies when the bastards' case is thrown out, but for the little guy who basically was terrorized into settling, there's no remedy. This is a rather unique form of extortion, where the extortionist may ultimately have to pay legal fees, but he won't see jail time for setting up a protection racket.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people *always* obey the law.

    11. Re:0 for 275? by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 2

      Wikipedia states that they received settlements on 70 suits filed in their first year (2010). I don't see any reference for that number, though, and nothing is listed for 2011.

      According to an unofficial page tracking their lawsuits, they have received an estimated $350,000 from settlements. The page appears to be out of date, and there is no way to really know what they've collected, but I'll bet it's not enough to cover the original costs of the purchased copyrights and cover legal fees for cases that they lose.

      --
      Free unix account: freeshell.org
    12. Re:0 for 275? by bragr · · Score: 1

      What do you propose? That the government pay for lawyers in everyone's trip and fall law suits? Clearly making it easier to get good lawyers will put end to all the frivolous law suits.

    13. Re:0 for 275? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      ... they have received an estimated $350,000 from settlements.

      Don't they have to split that $350,000 with Stephens Media as part of their "agreement"?

    14. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...no lack of remedies...

      No money would ever leave Righthaven towards it's victims, except what is strictly necessary to appear to be in compliance with the law.

    15. Re:0 for 275? by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 2

      Go shill for Google somewhere else you whore.

      Steve Ballmer, is that you?? ;-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    16. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Get rid of law. You're welcome. I'll be at lunch.

    17. Re:0 for 275? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      That's why we need more companies like Google. Companies that are willing to take patent trolls and other bad companies to court as long as it suits their business interests.. Google is one of many companies that fights against patents, copyright and other evil things for the good of their company..

      There. Fixed that for you.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    18. Re:0 for 275? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      Time for you to buy a senator or two.

      All you have to do is raise enough money.
      Time to start a collection.

      Hopefully the media won't find out.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    19. Re:0 for 275? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Google is probably the only company that fights against patents, copyright and other evil things for the greater good.

      Except that Google fights against none of those things?

    20. Re:0 for 275? by Dthief · · Score: 3, Insightful

      so not only will the person who payed more win, now the loser is doubly f**ked into paying a huge fee for the winning lawyers

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    21. Re:0 for 275? by Tarlus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your lunch won't be there. It's already stolen.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    22. Re:0 for 275? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Just to add, please explain how this was Google fighting against either patents or copyrights. Because as far as I can tell, the only way they could order such a cease and desist is through leveraging their COPYRIGHTS to their proprietary software.

    23. Re:0 for 275? by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      No, we don't need companies battling things out in court. We need to change the laws so that routes for scams like this are eliminated wholesale.

      OK, so what's your solution, armchair philosopher?

    24. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we need more companies like Google. Companies that are willing to take patent trolls and other bad companies to court for the common good. Google is probably the only company that fights against patents, copyright and other evil things for the greater good.

      WTF. This post is as bad as all the blatant Apple shilling around here. I assume it was deliberate, to smear Google through idiotic fanboyism. Mission success, I suppose.

    25. Re:0 for 275? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Yes, those that go all the way to court against crooked bastards like Righthaven certainly have no lack of remedies when the bastards' case is thrown out, but for the little guy who basically was terrorized into settling, there's no remedy.

      If Righthaven claimed that you infringed on their copyright, and you paid to avoid being sued, and it turns out that Righthaven never had any copyrights, then I think this falls straight under fraud. So I'd say the step to take is going straight to the police. And see what happens.

    26. Re:0 for 275? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      If by that you mean get rid of copyright and patent law, you are absolutely right. The negatives of those two sets of laws far far outweigh the benefits (even ignoring all the stupid lawsuits over them).

      Copyright and patent laws will need to go the way of the dinosaur eventually if human civilization is to continue to advance. The sooner we do it, the better.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    27. Re:0 for 275? by essjaytee · · Score: 0

      Real 'Loser Pays' would even the playing field and reduce the number of unwinnable, frivolous lawsuits.

      -S

    28. Re:0 for 275? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Loser pays and in addition a government regulated fee cap for lawyers. Also, and I guess that will cause some ire, get rid of the bloody jury system, at least when it comes to technical lawsuits. No sense to let IP cases be ruled by virtue of which lawyer can better bullshit Jose the Gardener sitting in the jury.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    29. Re:0 for 275? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      No, we don't need companies battling things out in court. We need to change the laws so that routes for scams like this are eliminated wholesale.

      OK, so what's your solution, armchair philosopher?

      1) His solution is to change the law.
      2) He's not philosophising
      3) What do you expect - people sky-dive whilst philosophising?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    30. Re:0 for 275? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      IANAL.
      So correct me if I am way off base here but ...
      Could you not get away with some kind of "agreement was signed under duress" argument?
      The duress being of course your inability to afford the lawyers fees to fight in court.

      I mean since they really are depending on those huge legal costs to make you want to just settle and get it out of the way it could be a form of duress.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    31. Re:0 for 275? by kryliss · · Score: 1

      Time for you to buy a senator or two.

      All you have to do is raise enough money.
      Time to start a collection.

      Hopefully the media won't find out.

      If the media finds out. Buy them too.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    32. Re:0 for 275? by stms · · Score: 1

      Yeah Government paying for all lawyers would be a possible solution. You could also potentially throw out many of those "trip an fall" lawsuits before a lawyer ever gets involved.

    33. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets see now. In this United States of America, the legislatures of all states and the US Congress are mostly...Lawyers. The administrators of the laws passed by the legislatures ( Governors, the President, and most of the department heads of the executive branches) are mostly...Lawyers. The adjudicators of questions of these laws (Judges) are virtually all....Lawyers.
      And you want to see rules limiting the powers of lawyers?.....good luck with that.

    34. Re:0 for 275? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Well if you settled you might be able to sue claiming fraud. Multiple judges have ruled that Righthaven did not have the right to sue; therefore they misrepresented themselves and any settlement should be voided.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    35. Re:0 for 275? by stms · · Score: 1

      Another solution to occurs to me. If a Lawsuit is thrown out as frivolous you're fined your legal fees.

    36. Re:0 for 275? by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      Another solution to occurs to me. If a Lawsuit is thrown out as frivolous you're fined your legal fees.

      And the damages you were seeking: the more you ask for, the more you could end up paying! Trolls like this would make damn sure they had a good chance of winning before they jumped into court.

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    37. Re:0 for 275? by shentino · · Score: 1

      On the other hand it's harder to be pushed into a settlement just to dodge hefty legal bills.

    38. Re:0 for 275? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Better still would be not allowing lawyers to exclude jurors for being too smart.

      The only reason lawyers get to bullshit Jose the Gardener in the first place is because Rosie the Rocket Scientist got expelled during voir dire.

    39. Re:0 for 275? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Media is already owned by the establishment that is hell bent on keeping things the way they are.

    40. Re:0 for 275? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Actually I think that if you threaten a civil suit in bad faith it counts as duress.

    41. Re:0 for 275? by solkimera · · Score: 2

      You mean if a huge corporation comes a long, sues you, trashes you with their huge legal team, now your stuck paying for it?

    42. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A national pay scale for lawyers. Pay them all $40 + 1.6*(years out of law school) per hour. Should have the pleasant side effect of reducing the concentration of soul-sucking money-grubbers within that otherwise honorable profession.

    43. Re:0 for 275? by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Change the law to what?

      Saying the law needs changing is no different, and just as effective, as saying "Something needs to be done."

      Useless drivel, unless the person saying such things has an actual solution.

    44. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what bullets were invented for.
      Courts kill 275 out of 275 but not one forbids them from ever filing again for abusing the courts.
      When law fails bullets are all you have left.

    45. Re:0 for 275? by shentino · · Score: 1

      If the worst that can happen is you go bankrupt from legal fees, ratcheting them up to include the other side's expenses won't really hurt much more.

      Once you're underground, you're underground.

      Besides, once you start having "loser pays" you also imply that you get a refund on your legal bills if you win your case.

      This in turn means that organizations like the EFF, ACLU, FSF, SFLC, and whatnot that provide legal defense funds will find their newly reusable donation dollars stretching much further, and they will be emboldened to step in more often.

      The EFF chipping in 50k for a lawyer will be easier on their bottom line if they can use the same money once the vexatious plaintiff coughs it back up again.

    46. Re:0 for 275? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Maybe not.

      If loser pays, then someone can donate to your legal expenses and get their money back when you win.

    47. Re:0 for 275? by shentino · · Score: 1

      I'll do you one better.

      Hold examiners accountable for the quality of their work.

      Make it so the USPTO stops rubber stamping patent applications.

      At present reexaminations stand a VERY good chance of narrowing or invalidating the patents in question.

      Which means that most of the patents are complete buckets of shit in the first place.

      Which means that the examiners at the USPTO aren't doing their fucking jobs like they're supposed to.

      I'd say that any patent getting overturned on reexamination or trial bites the original examiner in the ass...hard enough to make them think twice about rubber stamping a pile of bullshit.

    48. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see it. I see what you're looking for as the finder details to the solution. It seems, to me anyways, that "changing the law" is the first step in dealing with the problem... knowing the path you think is optimal is not reliant on working out the finer details first.

    49. Re:0 for 275? by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      Correction, prosecution should pay the defence's legal fees if prosecution loses, no change otherwise. Your interpretation is bat-shit crazy.

    50. Re:0 for 275? by neo8750 · · Score: 1

      The only reason lawyers get to bullshit Jose the Gardener in the first place is because Rosie the Rocket Scientist got expelled during voir dire.

      Are you sure or is it cause Rosie the Rocket Scientist is smart enough to know how to get out of jury duty?

    51. Re:0 for 275? by shentino · · Score: 1

      sadly I think it's both.

      Though lawyers giving wiseasses the boot during voire dire might make the more civic minded among us want to avoid jury duty anyway.

    52. Re:0 for 275? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Proposed refinement, the other sides fees it capped at the lesser of the two sides fees
      i.e. if a company spends $1,000,000 to sue a little guy who defends himself with $1,000, the most in awarded legal fees is $1000, eighter way.
      That might level the playing field a lot.

    53. Re:0 for 275? by Zemran · · Score: 1

      How about introducing some professional responsibility? If a lawyer charges for advice then he is professionally responsible for that advice. In other words he is jointly responsible for 'bad' advice and if the court feels that this is just a scam the lawyers can be made to help pay for their bad advice in that the person that was sued according to that bad professional advice deserves restitution. He has lost a lot more than just the cost of his defence fees. His time and distress etc. Lawyers suffering punitive damages for frivolous cases would soon change things :-)

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    54. Re:0 for 275? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      You just got trolled. You do realize this right? The guy is anti-google and he just threw out bait for more anti-Google rhetoric. You are a stooge.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    55. Re:0 for 275? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could just make it so when the accusing side looses, they have to pay for the defenders defense up to how much they spent attacking him. Throw in something similar for when accusers drop cases when they realize the accused will defend, and it will make it that much more costly to file frivolously.

    56. Re:0 for 275? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      LOL. It doesn't matter how you change the laws. Companies with deep pockets can always file baseless lawsuits if they want. These defendants were dismissed for lack of standing against them, which is a pretty basic prerequisite for any lawsuit. The lawsuits were easily baseless under current law but they were filed and abused anyway.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    57. Re:0 for 275? by bragr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but only a few percent of civil cases make it all the way through a jury trial. I'd say >95% are settled out of court. In cases were they do progress all the way through, the winner is usually awarded legal fees. So what you propose already exists. And sure you may recover your costs, but in the months or years leading up to the possible victory, you still have to pay your lawyer out of pocket.

  2. Best part by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Best part was that Righthaven tried claiming they shouldn't have to pay the defense's fees because they had no right to sue in the first place and therefore the court had no jurisdiction at all. I love the defense's response:

    Righthaven deserves some credit for taking this position, as it requires an amazing amount of chutzpah. Righthaven seeks a ruling holding that, as long as a plaintiff’s case is completely frivolous, then the court is deprived of the right to make the frivolously sued defendant whole, whereas a partially frivolous case might give rise to fee liability.

    Isn't this the sort of situation disbarment was designed to handle?

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:Best part by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did they seriously adapt "Well if I'm such a dummy and you're talking to me then what does that make you?" to the courtroom?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Best part by Spad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Making the argument that "Well it's your stupid fault for allowing our moronic, baseless case to be brought into your court room in the first place" does seem something of a last-gasp strategy.

    3. Re:Best part by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Making stupid arguments is not grounds for disbarrment. If it were, many lawyers would be out of work. Just like any job; you can do stupid things at work. That does not mean your employer can fire you unless your actions have other consequences.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Best part by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Righthaven isn't a real company, so it doesn't have things like corporate image to worry about, the people it's representing may. Ultimately bringing this thing to the media and exposing those responsible should take care of itself. Get out the tar and feathers? These people are committing a crime against society, not our f'ed up laws..

    5. Re:Best part by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't this the sort of situation disbarment was designed to handle?

      This is the type of situation that torches and pitchforks are designed to handle.

    6. Re:Best part by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There is a point beyond which it should be grounds for disbarment.

      I suspect this goes beyond that point.

    7. Re:Best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making stupid arguments and representations is a ground for disbarment, if you keep making the same ones. See Jack Thompson. The rule most on point for Righthaven is probably FRCP 11, especially subpart b. Basically you cannot make a claim that is not supported by some sort of good-faith argument. If you make many such claims and then do not voluntarily dismiss them when they are ruled not to be in good faith, then you can run afoul of the rules of conduct. Namely, Rules 3.3 and 3.4 because in the other cases, you are perpetrating a fraud on the court.

    8. Re:Best part by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Just like any job; you can do stupid things at work. That does not mean your employer can fire you unless your actions have other consequences.

      On the contrary, your employer can indeed do just that.

    9. Re:Best part by PPH · · Score: 2

      I wonder if I could use this as a DUI defense.

      "Your honor, I shouldn't be charged with driving under the influence as I do not posses a valid driver's license."

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this the sort of situation disbarment was designed to handle?

      In a just society, yes it would be. Sadly, we are lacking. Wasting the courts time should be not only looked down on, but the repercussions for it should be just short of cruel and unusual punishment.

      Case in point, after how much bull-shiat did it finally take for the court to finally disbar Jack Thompson? You remember him right? The video games are evil 'guy'. I rest my case!

    11. Re:Best part by sribe · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the sort of situation disbarment was designed to handle?

      One wonders... While the general reaction to that in this thread is the common sense one, that doesn't matter so much. I'm pretty sure that legally, Righthaven, when they filed suit in that court, submitted to the jurisdiction of that court for at least that proceeding. And I'm sure their lawyers knew that, making their argument against the court's jurisdiction now, not only laughable at the common sense test, not only wholly morally repugnant, but completely frivolous and abusive legally. Even if disbarment is not on the table, certainly the defendant should be awarded additional legal fees for having to deal with this nonsense, if not a contempt fine against the attorney that filed it.

    12. Re:Best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this the sort of situation dismemberment was designed to handle?

      Fixed that for you. And yes.

    13. Re:Best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would probably be as successful as Righthaven's argument was.

    14. Re:Best part by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      That indeed takes balls.

      Disbarment? More like impersonation of a legal professional.

    15. Re:Best part by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      ..and this car I stole is not registered to me either.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    16. Re:Best part by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Technically an employer can fire someone for any reason but unless they have cause, they are likely to get sued. Being an idiot in itself is not justification to fire someone. Poor performance is a reason. In the case of Righthaven, the client has decided to sue. The lawyer has to represent the client as best as possible; however, the client doesn't have much of a case. The lawyer has to make whatever legal arguments they can even if they are stupid.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    17. Re:Best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are Jews so entrenched in your legal system that Yiddish is now considered legal vernacular?

    18. Re:Best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in "Right to Work" states. You can be fired for no reason at all.

    19. Re:Best part by shentino · · Score: 1

      Suing your ex boss won't ever fly.

      1. Right to work specifically says they have every right to fire you at any time with or without cause just or otherwise.
      2. Suing your ex boss is going to get you blacklisted with future employers who will quite justifiably be gun-shy.

      All "cause" does is establish eligibility for unemployment benefits, or lack thereof.

      If you were fired because the boss didn't like your political views or your sports team loyalties, you can collect.

    20. Re:Best part by shentino · · Score: 1

      If they admit they had no right to sue in the first place that establishes that the lawsuit was frivolous.

    21. Re:Best part by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Are you really so embarrassed at not knowing what "chutzpah" means?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    22. Re:Best part by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      It happens all the time. Granted, most of those times it's for things like "Boss fired me because my religious and/or political beliefs differed from his" or "Boss fired me because I refused his/her sexual advances." For more mundane firings, suing isn't a very good option.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    23. Re:Best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear gods suddenly I yearn for the (comparatively greater) intelligence of SCO.

  3. Did anybody else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See Thomas DiBiase and think Ted DiBiase?

  4. Well, the ruling is on the books by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Now let's see if it's enforced. I doubt that any winning defendant will ever see a red cent from Righthaven, before the profits get syphoned to Bermuda and the empty shell goes bankrupt.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Well, the ruling is on the books by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      This is actually the second such settlement this particular set of lawyers has gotten out of Righthaven, and they've already gotten a cheque from the first one.

      Admittedly, the cheque was sent to the wrong address (a previous address that the group had moved out of before starting work on the case, and hadn't used in any of the documents relating to the case), but still.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  5. When you are 0 and 275... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should seriously consider changing their name to "Wronghaven"...

    1. Re:When you are 0 and 275... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should seriously consider changing their name to "Wronghaven"...

      I get it, instead of "Right"haven, it's "Wrong"haven! That's just comic genius right there... I mean, wrong there! Ha! Holy shit, I'm still laughing.

    2. Re:When you are 0 and 275... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It's all part of my plan to brute-force the entire punspace in a search for the good ones. The tailings of that operation can be downmodded or converted to cheap laughs, as my fellow slashdot timewasters prefer...

  6. Illegal by lowlevelio · · Score: 1

    This practice should be made illegal.

    1. Re:Illegal by FlyingGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "free market" is taking care of those who can afford to defend themselves. So this free market you espouse takes care of those with wealth and everyone else gets fucked up the ass and has no recourse. Sounds a lot like the Mortgage backed Securities disaster.

      I know you posted as AC but I also know you are reading this.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    2. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're a homophobe for the "fucked up the ass" comment. But that aside (I suppose you could apply it to women being victimized too but let's be honest, how often is that the intended usage?), yes honestly if you can't afford to defend yourself in court your opinions and positions do not really matter in the grand scheme of things in the US. You might not like it but we all know it's a true fact.

    3. Re:Illegal by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 1

      I suppose you could apply it to women being victimized too but let's be honest, how often is that the intended usage?

      Well he did kind of say "everyone", which kind of does mean "everyone". In fact getting "fucked up the ass" is about as gender-inclusive as you can get, since after all "everyone" does have one of them.

      --
      I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
    4. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > The free market is taking care of it just fine.

      What? How is this in any way related to the "free market" taking care of anything?

      This is the legal system calling BS on someone for trying to waste everyone's time and money. It does virtually nothing to stop them from trying again.

      That said, there probably isn't much that can easily be done to make "this practice" illegal as the GP suggested. If someone wants to bring a frivolous lawsuit, you kind of have to prove that it's frivolous.

      The truly unfortunate thing about this from a "free market" standpoint is that all of the resources that get effectively wasted on this sort of legal circle-jerk are resources that can't be put into something more productive... like developing new technologies and becoming more efficient in order to be more competitive.

    5. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very good point. I, Anonymous Coward, retract the homophobe accusation. If anybody cares.

    6. Re:Illegal by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Homophobe or describing an act he would prefer not performed on him? I prefer not to be robbed at gunpoint, does that make me biased against everyone who has a gun but chooses not to use it?

    7. Re:Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, CAN you even laugh? Do you even have the slightest clue what laughter is? Or do is it just that annoying distraction you hear from the spawnlings playing outside in the light of the dayball while you try to find new ways to hide from the world so you can finish your "important" work that Those Fools(tm) will never understand, and about which they have most likely laughed at you?

    8. Re:Illegal by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah well Texas figured out how to do it for those that can't. They make looses pay the court costs if they file frivolously.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Illegal by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      While that is all well and good a few points:

      • First you have to find a lawyer who is willing to work on the assumption that you will win and get costs and normal and customer fees.
      • If you cant you will need to take out a second on your house ( if you have any equity left after the housing collapse ) and hire a pretty good lawyer at around 250.00 to 300.00 per hour and at that rate the bill adds up mighty damn fast, even in Texas.
      • The very first thing that is going to happen is that the plaintiff is going to avalanche you with paper and court appearances because they have the deep pockets and you will find your pockets with holes in them in a big hurry AND you have to start making payments on the money your having to borrow against your house. You cant keep that up for long and they will just keep pounding away.

      The legal system is tilted directly in favor of those with deep pockets. And while you might prevail you will more then likely go broke in the process. And court costs and lawyers fees wont make up for the mental hell you and your family will go through in the process

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  7. The best part by kawabago · · Score: 1

    If each defendant is awarded similar fees the total bill for Righthaven could come to 275*35k = $9,625,000. ouch!

    1. Re:The best part by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      The company will declare bankruptcy and the lawyers will set up shop tomorrow under another name.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:The best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly. this is, afterall, RIGHTHAVEN *LLC*

    3. Re:The best part by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      That only protects the owners, not the officers. The officers can still be held financially accountable for the debts of the LLC.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  8. That's the worst part, actually by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Those aren't punitive damages - they're legal fees, and Righthaven won't be able to afford to pay all the defendants back for the legal costs they've incurred defending themselves against these sleazes.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  9. self policing don't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A group of lawyers to disbar lawyer(s) over (alleged) wrong doing... Riiiight.

  10. Go After the People Behind Them! by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    A local restaurant 'round here got sued for various employment violations a while back. A friend of mine was curious and dug up some legal documents from the lawsuits. One of the things I found interesting was that the plaintiffs had made a motion to find that the owners of the incorporated restaurant were using the corporation as an alias and therefore the corporation should not afford the usual protection against going after the owners' personal assets.

    I don't know how that one flew, but if you can actually do that, would it be possible to go after the actual parties who are using it as a legal shield from liability?

    I won't even explore which side of the legal line they're on compared to a good old fashioned extortion ring, or whether their misrepresentation of their interests would constitute fraud or not, for the people who settled with them.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Go After the People Behind Them! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      It's part of the corporate veil. As long as you don't improperly mix personal and corporate acts/finances, the corporation should shield you from personal liability.

      The interesting part here is that the lawyers in charge are professionals (in the legal sense, like accountants, engineers, and doctors) and if they could be found liable for gross negligence they might be personally responsible. Every state code is different, though. Professional liability is not shielded by corporate status.

      (I am not a lawyer, but I am a professional engineer and run a business, so I have had to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of corporate status)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Go After the People Behind Them! by sribe · · Score: 1

      I don't know how that one flew, but if you can actually do that, would it be possible to go after the actual parties who are using it as a legal shield from liability?

      I was getting ready to post something, and looking for the right post to reply to ;-) The first judgment, maybe 2 or 3, are arguable. But if there's a solidly established history of losing, then continuing the suits does become, I think, the sort of activity which is considered illicit enough to hold the owners personally liable.

  11. Punies by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

    Rather than just compensation for legal fees, abusive prosecutions like this needs to result in assessments of punitive damages on the scale of 3-10x times the compensatory damages. That would end this kind of abuse very quickly.

  12. They haven't won, but... by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    .. the people they sued (not including Democratic Underground.. I wonder what would have happened if they didn't rile up a bunch of bloggers by suing a liberal blog) have had a LOT of stress and financial hardship.

    One of the people Righthaven sued is known to me. He's tapped out savings paying lawyers to defend against Righthaven's utter bullshit.

    I hope the people at Righthaven choke on a huge bowl of dicks. Rotten thieving motherfuckers.

  13. ellipsis by Hugh+Pickens+writes · · Score: 1
    Hugh Pickens writes

    Steve Green writes that in a stunning reversal for Righthaven, the Las Vegas copyright troll won't be collecting any damages from a man it once branded as a copyright infringer but instead must pay the man's legal fees of $34,045. US District Judge Philip Pro awarded the fees in the case of Kentucky message board poster Wayne Hoehn dismissing Righthaven's suit and finding that Righthaven didn't have standing to sue him due to the Review-Journal maintaining control of the column despite Righthaven's claims of ownership and even that if Righthaven did have ownership, Hoehn was protected by the fair use doctrine in posting an entire Las Vegas Review-Journal column on a sports betting website message board. This is the second attorney's fee award against Righthaven. Earlier, Randazza Legal Group was awarded $3,815 for representing defendant Michael Leon. But these are likely just the tip of the iceberg, with prevailing defendant Thomas DiBiase asking for $199,250 while the Democratic Underground will likely seek a fee award of many hundreds of thousands of dollars after Righthaven was dismissed from that suit for lack of standing. The bottom line for Righthaven is that so far it has not won a single lawsuit - of 275 lawsuits filed since 2010 - on the merits."

  14. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your employer can fire you for nearly any reason, or no reason at all, apart from some specifically prohibited things like racial discrimination. You can certainly be fired for making stupid decisions in the performance of your job.

    1. Re:Huh? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      in the performance of your job.

      Wouldn't job performance be one of the consequences mentioned above?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  15. A front by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shame more news articles don't clearly state Righthaven's links to Stephen Media and it's titles. It'd be nice if Stephen Media titles suffered because of Righthaven's activities. I'm not optimistic though, as there are plenty of cunts who continue to read Murdoch's UK rag, and will almost certainly flock to his rebranded NoTW when it launches.

  16. The saddest part by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    This is the type of situation that torches and pitchforks are designed to handle.

    The saddest part is that we're fast approaching that, down a slippery slope.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  17. So sue me by Intron · · Score: 1

    If by that you mean get rid of copyright and patent law, you are absolutely right. The negatives of those two sets of laws far far outweigh the benefits (even ignoring all the stupid lawsuits over them).

    Copyright and patent laws will need to go the way of the dinosaur eventually if human civilization is to continue to advance. The sooner we do it, the better.

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    1. Re:So sue me by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Then you need to figure out a *viable* method of reimbursing the people who produce the work.

      An author writes a book and it's legal to simply copy and distribute it? No more books.

      An inventor creates a new internal printer sensor and some other company can simply use it without payment? No more new sensors.