3 ms·

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.