4 ms·

The judge hasn't said the case is frivolous. He's just required to post a bond in case he loses. This guy is notorious for filing large numbers of cases. That

by ikeboy 7y ago

The judge hasn't said the case is frivolous. He's just required to post a bond in case he loses. This guy is notorious for filing large numbers of cases. That doesn't mean they're meritless. He does this for many different clients, and those clients have their own businesses. It's not like he's buying up copyrights to sue or anything.

netcan 7y ago
* It's not like he's buying up copyrights to sue or anything.* Effectively, he is. Whether it's buying, licensing or taking an option (what he actually is doing)... he's basically acquired the right to sue for money and keep the earnings. The troll business model is the same whether he's formally representing clients for a (presumably large) cut or buying up portfolios.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  So your belief is the lawyers in a case need to have significant non-legal business in order to not be trolling?
  - netcan 7y ago
    I mean what I said above. A business model whereby (1) one sits under a bridge made of copyrights/patents, or options to that effect and (2) uses the legal system (usually letters, but also litigation/etc.) to bully settlements out of passers-by. In this case, (1) get the right to sue for profit on photos. (2) Find an infringer or grey area (3) sue (4) Try to get a settlement smaller than likely damages.. because "it's cheaper and less scary than court." Did you read the article? The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle. This is literal trolling, bridge, big teeth and all. He doesn't care about the damages/rulings, all he cares about is causing enough legal costs to bully the defendant into a settlement.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      1. For the third time, the business model is licensing images. 2. "The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle." If they believed damages were likely to only be 1k, they'd have taken the offer. Their calculation neglects statutory damages. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7-4c87-a7cb-c8c382cd1be6 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7... is another case from the same lawyer where statutory damages of $2500 were awarded. If you're entitled to $2500 (for argument's sake) and the other side makes a maximum offer of $1000, rejecting can be reasonable. And if you turn out to win less than $1000, sure, pay for the other side's fees.
kickopotomus 7y ago
FTA, stated by the judge in reference to Liebowitz: "His litigation strategy in this district fits squarely within the definition of a copyright troll."
- ikeboy 7y ago
  If he felt it was frivolous, he would dismiss it. There's nothing wrong with filing large numbers of cases, per se. See also https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2018/04/12/what-is-a-copyright-troll/ https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2018/04/12/what-is-a-copyrig...
  - kickopotomus 7y ago
    She. The cases do not need to be frivolous. Exploitative behavior is all that is required. In this particular case, the defendant immediately removed the image when notified and offered a the photographer 5 times their usual licensing fee. That is an extremely reasonable resolution given there is no evidence that the defendant profited from its use of the image. Attempting to further pursue the case after a reasonable settlement was offered is an attempt to use the court extrajudicially as a means to be financially punitive. That is the reasoning behind part (d) of rule 68 as referenced in the article.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      Rejecting a rule 68 offer doesn't imply the offer was reasonable. Statutory damages mean that licensing fees are not necessarily the basis for damages. Also, it's up the client to accept any offer, not the lawyer.
      - kickopotomus 7y ago
        Again, given the defendant's compliance, reasonable offer, and the judge's obvious distaste for the whole ordeal, it is unlikely that they would be awarded anything but the minimum for both statutory and actual damages which would result in a smaller payout than the original offer. Also, sure, the rejection alone may not imply that the offer was reasonable. However, the fact that this is apparently a common pattern of behavior, to the point that the judge (who has heard his cases and is familiar with his antics) decided to put their foot down, implies that the offer was reasonable and that Liebowitz is attempting to use the court for his own gain.

by ikeboy 7y ago

netcan 7y ago

* It's not like he's buying up copyrights to sue or anything.* Effectively, he is. Whether it's buying, licensing or taking an option (what he actually is doing)... he's basically acquired the right to sue for money and keep the earnings. The troll business model is the same whether he's formally representing clients for a (presumably large) cut or buying up portfolios.

ikeboy 7y ago
So your belief is the lawyers in a case need to have significant non-legal business in order to not be trolling?
- netcan 7y ago
  I mean what I said above. A business model whereby (1) one sits under a bridge made of copyrights/patents, or options to that effect and (2) uses the legal system (usually letters, but also litigation/etc.) to bully settlements out of passers-by. In this case, (1) get the right to sue for profit on photos. (2) Find an infringer or grey area (3) sue (4) Try to get a settlement smaller than likely damages.. because "it's cheaper and less scary than court." Did you read the article? The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle. This is literal trolling, bridge, big teeth and all. He doesn't care about the damages/rulings, all he cares about is causing enough legal costs to bully the defendant into a settlement.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    1. For the third time, the business model is licensing images. 2. "The precedent is only relevant because the defendant will incur $100k in legal fees to defend against likely damages of $1k, that he'd/she'd already agreed to settle." If they believed damages were likely to only be 1k, they'd have taken the offer. Their calculation neglects statutory damages. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7-4c87-a7cb-c8c382cd1be6 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f0de0d0-e0a7... is another case from the same lawyer where statutory damages of $2500 were awarded. If you're entitled to $2500 (for argument's sake) and the other side makes a maximum offer of $1000, rejecting can be reasonable. And if you turn out to win less than $1000, sure, pay for the other side's fees.

kickopotomus 7y ago

FTA, stated by the judge in reference to Liebowitz: "His litigation strategy in this district fits squarely within the definition of a copyright troll."

ikeboy 7y ago
If he felt it was frivolous, he would dismiss it. There's nothing wrong with filing large numbers of cases, per se. See also https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2018/04/12/what-is-a-copyright-troll/ https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2018/04/12/what-is-a-copyrig...
- kickopotomus 7y ago
  She. The cases do not need to be frivolous. Exploitative behavior is all that is required. In this particular case, the defendant immediately removed the image when notified and offered a the photographer 5 times their usual licensing fee. That is an extremely reasonable resolution given there is no evidence that the defendant profited from its use of the image. Attempting to further pursue the case after a reasonable settlement was offered is an attempt to use the court extrajudicially as a means to be financially punitive. That is the reasoning behind part (d) of rule 68 as referenced in the article.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    Rejecting a rule 68 offer doesn't imply the offer was reasonable. Statutory damages mean that licensing fees are not necessarily the basis for damages. Also, it's up the client to accept any offer, not the lawyer.
    - kickopotomus 7y ago
      Again, given the defendant's compliance, reasonable offer, and the judge's obvious distaste for the whole ordeal, it is unlikely that they would be awarded anything but the minimum for both statutory and actual damages which would result in a smaller payout than the original offer. Also, sure, the rejection alone may not imply that the offer was reasonable. However, the fact that this is apparently a common pattern of behavior, to the point that the judge (who has heard his cases and is familiar with his antics) decided to put their foot down, implies that the offer was reasonable and that Liebowitz is attempting to use the court for his own gain.