Judge to copyright troll: your lawsuits are shams, give it up


16 Responses to “Judge to copyright troll: your lawsuits are shams, give it up”

  1. Jake0748 says:

    Good. Yay, Chief Judge Hunt. We need many more like you.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been following EFF (and FSF – Richard Stallman – before them) since they started and have yet to disagree. Stallman tends to jump off the pier occasionally, but he’s been basically right.

    Gatting back to the main point, IMHO the past victims of RIghthaven, those who have been conned into settling, are due total refunds, plus any legal fees. If I’m not mistaken, they also, collectively, have a civil class-action case against Righthaven and Stephens, jointly. In addition, I believe there is a substantial fraud and criminal conspiracy case against Righthaven and Stephens Media.

  3. Gulliver says:

    Can I care retroactively? Cuz there’s lots a crap that went down before I got here that concerns me.

  4. Cowicide says:

    EFF, Fenwick & West LLP, and Chad Bowers … You all fuckin’ rock!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. spocko says:

    So the question is, do the people they got settlements from get their money back?

    • Anonymous says:

      No. That’s the thing about settling. It’s settle, regardless of future outcome. Those that settled could try to sue saying they got shook down… but its usually in the settling contract language that both parties agree it’s not a shake down.

  6. Laroquod says:

    None of this can hold a candle to what it felt like to start caring 125 years ago…

  7. MrJM says:

    It’s been 10 years and I’m still waiting for the Electronic Frontier Foundation take a position with which I disagree.

    Huzzah, EFF!


  8. Anonymous says:

    This seems appropriate:

    Ha ha!

  9. Anonymous says:

    It seems like this would have been covered under common law prohibitions against barratry (harassing litigation) and champerty (3rd parties involved in litigation). Too bad we’ve mostly done away with those protections in our enlightened age.

    Champerty was considered contrary to the public good because 3rd parties did not have a legitimate interest in the suit. That is, they might have bought into the lawsuit by, for example, buying up debts or copyright claims, but they hadn’t really suffered any damages. When debts can be transferred for a few cents on the dollar, people could (and did) buy up all of an enemy’s outstanding debts, then demand immediate payment in full. Also, nickel and dime suits that wouldn’t have been worthwhile for the original plaintiff are brought by these 3rd party trolls. That’s inimical to the public interest because defendants are disproportionately damaged while the original plaintiffs are not made whole, either.


Leave a Reply