6 ms·

I see that as the judge telling the trolls to stop trolling. Without the threat of protracted legal costs the trolls have no teeth.

monochromatic 16y ago
I agree, and I kind of have a problem with it. Regardless of my thoughts about this case and others like it, the judge is supposed to be objective; he sure sounds like he's already biased against the plaintiff.
- ascendant 16y ago
  I think at some point we have to say "enough is enough" and stop letting people game the system as a business model. The legal system is there for people to seek actual reparation for actual damages incurred. I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis but clearly Righthaven haven't even gone through with due process by first sending cease-and-desist letters as noted by the judge. They're just passing Go and attempting to collect $200.
  - monochromatic 16y ago
    That's not what due process means. There's no law that says they have to give the defendant notice and opportunity to stop infringing before filing suit. If the system needs reform, then reform the system. But a judge shouldn't be prematurely taking sides against a litigant who's playing by the rules as they currently exist.
    - CamperBob 16y ago
      There's no law that says they have to give the defendant notice and opportunity to stop infringing before filing suit. Not technically, but as the article says, if the plaintiff takes no steps to mitigate the damages he's supposedly suffering, but goes straight for the defendant's wallet without asking for so much as a preliminary injunction, it's reasonable to suspect his motives.
      - monochromatic 16y ago
        And that may affect what he eventually receives in damages. But the judge taking sides against him based on doing something that he's within his rights to do is inappropriate.
    - ascendant 16y ago
      I guess then that delineates the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and what you value more.
- chc 16y ago
  It doesn't sound like that to me. He sounds like he's against the plaintiff on that issue, for sure, but that doesn't mean he lacked objectivity. Being objective or unbiased means that you aren't influenced by external factors, so your decision is based only on the relevant facts. It doesn't mean you don't ultimately take one side or the other.
  - monochromatic 16y ago
    The case hasn't been litigated yet. Sure, he's eventually going to take sides... but this is way premature.
    - chc 16y ago
      Unless I'm badly confused, the particular issue on which he came out against the plaintiff was already brought up.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      As I understand it, a judge can make a preliminary decision that a case, or elements of a case, are without merit, before hearing the complete arguments of the plaintiff.
      - CWuestefeld 16y ago
        Yes. A judge is making ... judgments ... all through the case. Every time that cliche lawyer jumps up and cries "objection", the judge has to make a decision, and take a side.
- vacri 16y ago
  Judges are supposed to be intelligent, not automata.
esoteriq 16y ago
Maybe, maybe not. David Kerr, the defense laywer, was going to file numerous motions to dismiss/ change venues. That would have ran up the copyright troll's legal bills. I suspect that the judge would have happily gone along with Kerr's plan, but who knows? Doesn't really matter in this case anyway. The mere threat of actual litigation scared Righthaven away.
- teyc 16y ago
  No. The loser may be asked to pay for the legal costs of the winning party. This is not a good strategy for most people, even for Hill (I suspect). Hill's attorney had two things in mind: 1. If Hill won, it'd have been very bad for RightHaven. 2. If RightHaven backed down, it'd be good for Hill. 3. If RightHaven won and got a large judgement against Hill, the outrage would be huge. But Hill would still be up for the bill.
  - westicle 16y ago
    Actually, if you read the pleadings it is clear that Hill has no assets or income other than a disability pension. So if Hill won, or Righthaven backed down, great for Hill. But if Righthaven won an obscene judgment plus costs against Hill, he could simply ignore it. Righthaven's only recourse would be to spend more money obtaining a bankruptcy order against him which would: 1. Probably have no practical impact on Hill, a mentally an physically disabled single man with no assets; and 2. Still not result in Righthaven recovering any money.
    - teyc 16y ago
      I'm aware of that. However, he may still be instructed to pay or face jail time. At which point his carer will have to fork out money.

monochromatic 16y ago

I agree, and I kind of have a problem with it. Regardless of my thoughts about this case and others like it, the judge is supposed to be objective; he sure sounds like he's already biased against the plaintiff.

ascendant 16y ago
I think at some point we have to say "enough is enough" and stop letting people game the system as a business model. The legal system is there for people to seek actual reparation for actual damages incurred. I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis but clearly Righthaven haven't even gone through with due process by first sending cease-and-desist letters as noted by the judge. They're just passing Go and attempting to collect $200.
- monochromatic 16y ago
  That's not what due process means. There's no law that says they have to give the defendant notice and opportunity to stop infringing before filing suit. If the system needs reform, then reform the system. But a judge shouldn't be prematurely taking sides against a litigant who's playing by the rules as they currently exist.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    There's no law that says they have to give the defendant notice and opportunity to stop infringing before filing suit. Not technically, but as the article says, if the plaintiff takes no steps to mitigate the damages he's supposedly suffering, but goes straight for the defendant's wallet without asking for so much as a preliminary injunction, it's reasonable to suspect his motives.
    - monochromatic 16y ago
      And that may affect what he eventually receives in damages. But the judge taking sides against him based on doing something that he's within his rights to do is inappropriate.
  - ascendant 16y ago
    I guess then that delineates the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and what you value more.
chc 16y ago
It doesn't sound like that to me. He sounds like he's against the plaintiff on that issue, for sure, but that doesn't mean he lacked objectivity. Being objective or unbiased means that you aren't influenced by external factors, so your decision is based only on the relevant facts. It doesn't mean you don't ultimately take one side or the other.
- monochromatic 16y ago
  The case hasn't been litigated yet. Sure, he's eventually going to take sides... but this is way premature.
  - chc 16y ago
    Unless I'm badly confused, the particular issue on which he came out against the plaintiff was already brought up.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    As I understand it, a judge can make a preliminary decision that a case, or elements of a case, are without merit, before hearing the complete arguments of the plaintiff.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      Yes. A judge is making ... judgments ... all through the case. Every time that cliche lawyer jumps up and cries "objection", the judge has to make a decision, and take a side.
vacri 16y ago
Judges are supposed to be intelligent, not automata.

esoteriq 16y ago

Maybe, maybe not. David Kerr, the defense laywer, was going to file numerous motions to dismiss/ change venues. That would have ran up the copyright troll's legal bills. I suspect that the judge would have happily gone along with Kerr's plan, but who knows? Doesn't really matter in this case anyway. The mere threat of actual litigation scared Righthaven away.

teyc 16y ago
No. The loser may be asked to pay for the legal costs of the winning party. This is not a good strategy for most people, even for Hill (I suspect). Hill's attorney had two things in mind: 1. If Hill won, it'd have been very bad for RightHaven. 2. If RightHaven backed down, it'd be good for Hill. 3. If RightHaven won and got a large judgement against Hill, the outrage would be huge. But Hill would still be up for the bill.
- westicle 16y ago
  Actually, if you read the pleadings it is clear that Hill has no assets or income other than a disability pension. So if Hill won, or Righthaven backed down, great for Hill. But if Righthaven won an obscene judgment plus costs against Hill, he could simply ignore it. Righthaven's only recourse would be to spend more money obtaining a bankruptcy order against him which would: 1. Probably have no practical impact on Hill, a mentally an physically disabled single man with no assets; and 2. Still not result in Righthaven recovering any money.
  - teyc 16y ago
    I'm aware of that. However, he may still be instructed to pay or face jail time. At which point his carer will have to fork out money.