Righthaven Loses Again

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @06:19AM from the nuke-them-from-orbit dept.

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."

21 of 119 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

0 for 275? by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-08-16 06:22 · 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 · 2011-08-16 06:31 · 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 · 2011-08-16 06:34 · 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 stms · 2011-08-16 06:39 · 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.
4. Re:0 for 275? by MightyMartian · 2011-08-16 06:41 · 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.
5. Re:0 for 275? by uigrad_2000 · 2011-08-16 06:52 · 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
6. Re:0 for 275? by u-235-sentinel · 2011-08-16 06:57 · 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
7. Re:0 for 275? by Antisyzygy · 2011-08-16 07:02 · 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".
8. Re:0 for 275? by Dthief · 2011-08-16 07:32 · 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
9. Re:0 for 275? by Tarlus · 2011-08-16 07:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Your lunch won't be there. It's already stolen.
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
10. Re:0 for 275? by solkimera · 2011-08-16 09:31 · 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?
Best part by Baloroth · 2011-08-16 06:25 · 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 · 2011-08-16 06:31 · 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 · 2011-08-16 06:35 · 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 WrongSizeGlass · 2011-08-16 06:46 · 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.
4. Re:Best part by John+Bresnahan · 2011-08-16 06:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There is a point beyond which it should be grounds for disbarment.
  I suspect this goes beyond that point.
5. Re:Best part by PPH · 2011-08-16 07:12 · 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.
When you are 0 and 275... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-08-16 06:45 · Score: 4, Funny

They should seriously consider changing their name to "Wronghaven"...
Re:The best part by MightyMartian · 2011-08-16 06:48 · 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.
Re:Illegal by FlyingGuy · 2011-08-16 07:12 · 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!
Punies by Citizen+of+Earth · 2011-08-16 07:30 · 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.