5 ms·

I wouldn't read too much into that or anything said in the complaint until the actual source documents are filed and we see the response to the complaint filed

by Natsu 11y ago

I wouldn't read too much into that or anything said in the complaint until the actual source documents are filed and we see the response to the complaint filed in court. That could very well be the nuisance value of the suit for them in their situation. Trying to judge a case from just the initial complaint is far too incomplete a picture to go on. I'd withhold judgement until there are more facts established that both sides have had a chance to argue over. Almost everything you read in the media is ill-informed analysis of non-lawyers. Haven't had much good coverage since Groklaw.

enraged_camel 11y ago
I agree that the source documents are important. But the question shouldn't be whether Jeremy's side can produce them. If they couldn't, this lawsuit wouldn't be happening right now. Clearly, they think they have a significant chance of winning. Otherwise, Jeremy wouldn't have turned down $4.5 million.
- tempestn 11y ago
  I agree with you, but remember that Jeremy turned down the 4.5 before having a chance to consult with his lawyer. So he must have believed he had a significant chance of winning at that point, and his lawyer must now believe there is some chance of winning or he wouldn't take the case, but we don't know that the lawyer would have advised turning down the 4.5.
  - _sentient 11y ago
    Are you really both asserting that the mere fact someone is willing to litigate acts as evidence to the merit of their claims? This is California. Frivolous lawsuits make up a meaningful portion of our GDP.
    - tempestn 11y ago
      Certainly turning down a $4.5M settlement suggests you believe there's merit to your claims. Also, reputable lawyers won't take on a case they don't believe they have any chance of winning, and Keker & Van Nest appears to be a reputable firm. So not always, but in this case, basically yes. Admittedly there is a bit of a difference between "chance of winning" and "some merit" (unfortunately) though.
      - Natsu 11y ago
        Even SCO hired reputable lawyers. Alas, it's generally the less rational plaintiffs where people give them entirely too much credit. It's always better to wait for all the facts first. We have no reason to rush to judgement, nor is it a good idea. It simply makes one easier to manipulate, as the truth is most often the last thing to be heard. It's always easier to toss out a few quick lies than to painstakingly document the truth, especially in court.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    His beliefs may or may not conform to reality. I don't find it worthwhile to prejudge the cases based on my read of someone's actions. He's not required to act in a rational manner and the less rational a plaintiff's behavior, the more outlandish the claims may be (see also: Paul Ceglia). So I'm going to stick with no opinion either way and wait for the hard evidence, rather than trying to read the behavior of people I don't know, who may or may not conform to my ideas of rational behavior, which is something we've yet to establish. This is very important given that flat-out crazy parties (see also: SCO) have tied up the courts for, well, decades based on stuff and nonsense (and mostly the latter). As I can't prove whether plaintiff or defendant are rational until I see evidence, we're stuck with "stay neutral until you get the facts." I've read plenty of cases and I've yet to see a case where prejudging the parties was a good idea. Contrarily, I've seen plenty of people get excited about nonsense that was laughed out of court later. So no, there just isn't a good reason to rush to judgement on this or any other case. Whether the plaintiff or defendant is right is something we should wait to decide later, once we have a more complete set of facts.
- nikcub 11y ago
  I'll give you a counterexample: Paul Ceglia[0] He claimed to own 80% of Facebook after reaching a written agreement with Mark Zuckerberg and filed a lawsuit[1]. He managed to retain some very high profile law firms to pursuit the case on his behalf. It was only discovered later, by his own representatives, that he had forged the evidence (he had hired Zuckerberg to do some work, but not on Facebook) and the case was dismissed[2]. Facebook went on to sue the lawfirms, Ceglia was charged with fraud and last anybody heard from him he escaped house detention awaiting sentencing and is now a fugitive[3]. The entire case is fascinating [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ceglia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ceglia [1] http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/20/technology/facebook_ownership/index.htm?iid=EL http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/20/technology/facebook_ownershi... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/30/technology/social/paul-ceglia-facebook/?iid=EL http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/30/technology/social/paul-cegli... [3] http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202736579636/Where-in-the-World-is-Paul-Ceglia?slreturn=20160315014813 http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202736579636/Where-in-the-...

by Natsu 11y ago

enraged_camel 11y ago

I agree that the source documents are important. But the question shouldn't be whether Jeremy's side can produce them. If they couldn't, this lawsuit wouldn't be happening right now. Clearly, they think they have a significant chance of winning. Otherwise, Jeremy wouldn't have turned down $4.5 million.

tempestn 11y ago
I agree with you, but remember that Jeremy turned down the 4.5 before having a chance to consult with his lawyer. So he must have believed he had a significant chance of winning at that point, and his lawyer must now believe there is some chance of winning or he wouldn't take the case, but we don't know that the lawyer would have advised turning down the 4.5.
- _sentient 11y ago
  Are you really both asserting that the mere fact someone is willing to litigate acts as evidence to the merit of their claims? This is California. Frivolous lawsuits make up a meaningful portion of our GDP.
  - tempestn 11y ago
    Certainly turning down a $4.5M settlement suggests you believe there's merit to your claims. Also, reputable lawyers won't take on a case they don't believe they have any chance of winning, and Keker & Van Nest appears to be a reputable firm. So not always, but in this case, basically yes. Admittedly there is a bit of a difference between "chance of winning" and "some merit" (unfortunately) though.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      Even SCO hired reputable lawyers. Alas, it's generally the less rational plaintiffs where people give them entirely too much credit. It's always better to wait for all the facts first. We have no reason to rush to judgement, nor is it a good idea. It simply makes one easier to manipulate, as the truth is most often the last thing to be heard. It's always easier to toss out a few quick lies than to painstakingly document the truth, especially in court.
- Natsu 11y ago
  His beliefs may or may not conform to reality. I don't find it worthwhile to prejudge the cases based on my read of someone's actions. He's not required to act in a rational manner and the less rational a plaintiff's behavior, the more outlandish the claims may be (see also: Paul Ceglia). So I'm going to stick with no opinion either way and wait for the hard evidence, rather than trying to read the behavior of people I don't know, who may or may not conform to my ideas of rational behavior, which is something we've yet to establish. This is very important given that flat-out crazy parties (see also: SCO) have tied up the courts for, well, decades based on stuff and nonsense (and mostly the latter). As I can't prove whether plaintiff or defendant are rational until I see evidence, we're stuck with "stay neutral until you get the facts." I've read plenty of cases and I've yet to see a case where prejudging the parties was a good idea. Contrarily, I've seen plenty of people get excited about nonsense that was laughed out of court later. So no, there just isn't a good reason to rush to judgement on this or any other case. Whether the plaintiff or defendant is right is something we should wait to decide later, once we have a more complete set of facts.
nikcub 11y ago
I'll give you a counterexample: Paul Ceglia[0] He claimed to own 80% of Facebook after reaching a written agreement with Mark Zuckerberg and filed a lawsuit[1]. He managed to retain some very high profile law firms to pursuit the case on his behalf. It was only discovered later, by his own representatives, that he had forged the evidence (he had hired Zuckerberg to do some work, but not on Facebook) and the case was dismissed[2]. Facebook went on to sue the lawfirms, Ceglia was charged with fraud and last anybody heard from him he escaped house detention awaiting sentencing and is now a fugitive[3]. The entire case is fascinating [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ceglia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ceglia [1] http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/20/technology/facebook_ownership/index.htm?iid=EL http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/20/technology/facebook_ownershi... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/30/technology/social/paul-ceglia-facebook/?iid=EL http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/30/technology/social/paul-cegli... [3] http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202736579636/Where-in-the-World-is-Paul-Ceglia?slreturn=20160315014813 http://www.americanlawyer.com/id=1202736579636/Where-in-the-...