4 ms·

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

124 points by jrnkntl 15y ago

skimbrel 15y ago
Good. We need more smart judges and good decisions like this.
mikeryan 15y ago
So if I understand correctly the history here, Righthaven doesn't actually purchase the IP from the copyright holders. They obtain the rights to sue in the copyright holders name (and take part of the proceeds). I believe in this case the judge found that there's no legal ability for Righthaven to be a plaintiff in a copyright case where they don't own the rights to the actual IP.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  Yeah. It's basically a problem of who has standing to sue.
- _delirium 15y ago
  In particular, the reasoning that other court cases have adopted is that the Copyright Act only allows suits by "the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright", and then goes on to list six exclusive rights: reproduction, production of derivative works, distribution, and three kinds of public-performance rights (e.g. of audio transmissions, of public film showings, etc.). So, Righthaven would need to own at least one of those six rights regarding a work to sue over it, which it doesn't.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    Wait, that's only five.
    - _delirium 15y ago
      Oops, I had muddled some of the three variants of the public-performance right; edited.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Can't get a bigger patent troll than Righthaven. I mean, they don't even have the patents themselves. Their business model is to sue others. You know something is wrong when you can make money from suing others alone.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  > You know something is wrong when you can make money from suing others alone. You mean like ... lawyers?
  - bdhe 15y ago
    You mean like ... lawyers? I think this is silly. Lawyers do not make money by suing people. People sue people and lawyers represent them. You can be your own lawyer, although it will probably not work out in your favour almost all cases.
    - damoncali 15y ago
      I've always said that it's not the lawyers that bug me. It's their clients.
      - evilduck 15y ago
        That's not entirely true, the term 'ambulance chasers' was coined for a reason, and there are plenty of instances where both sides still lose and only the lawyers gain anything substantial (class actions).
    - ams6110 15y ago
      Where can I sign up for your cable TV plan? Mine is filled with adverts from various law firms soliciting their services for anything from personal injuries to social security disability to asbestos-related diseases, various pharmaceutical-related claims, and a dozen other things. Yeah in the end the client is the one making the claim, but the lawyers are the ones who talked them into it.
grellas 15y ago
This decision is astutely analyzed by Eric Goldman here: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/righthaven_benc.htm http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/righthaven_benc.... This is a devastating loss for Righthaven. Among other things: 1. The core defect exposed by this ruling - Righthaven's lack of standing to bring any claims for copyright infringement - applies to all 200 RH cases pending in Nevada and likely those in Colorado as well. 2. The defect can't be fixed as to the existing cases, putting all pending RH cases in jeopardy. 3. The judge found serious procedural misconduct by RH and gave it two weeks to "show cause," in writing, why it should not be sanctioned. Court rules say you have to disclose the name of anyone who has a financial stake in the litigation. RH failed to do so concerning Stephens Media, which holds a 50% right to any recovery. It failed to do so in any of the 200 cases filed in Nevada, leaving the judge seriously disturbed by this and by other RH misrepresentations made to the court. Thus, not only will RH likely get bounced in all its cases, it will probably have to pay a pretty penny for having abused the court's processes in putting on its charade. No more devastating outcome could be imagined for a litigation campaign of this type. 4. Perhaps the most interesting tidbit that came out: in an editorial, Sherman Frederick, formerly of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, had threatened to introduce his "little friend called Righthaven" to those who published his paper's content, an unmistakable reference to Al Pacino's "little friend" in the movie Scarface, an M-16 machine gun with grenade launcher - capturing in brief the hubris behind the whole RH campaign and perhaps more than anything else explaining why this judge has decided to make RH pay for that hubris. An appeal is inevitable but, for now, RH is watching its business model crumble.
- MaysonL 15y ago
  I wonder, will Stephens Media potentially have a malpractice suit against Righthaven?
mcantor 15y ago
It's about time.
felipemnoa 15y ago
Unfortunately Electronic Frontier Foundation is one of the few organizations that are defending the people in cases like this. We need to do our part to help them. Please donate some money to them if you can afford it.

124 points by jrnkntl 15y ago

Good. We need more smart judges and good decisions like this.

So if I understand correctly the history here, Righthaven doesn't actually purchase the IP from the copyright holders. They obtain the rights to sue in the copyright holders name (and take part of the proceeds). I believe in this case the judge found that there's no legal ability for Righthaven to be a plaintiff in a copyright case where they don't own the rights to the actual IP.

monochromatic 15y ago
Yeah. It's basically a problem of who has standing to sue.
_delirium 15y ago
In particular, the reasoning that other court cases have adopted is that the Copyright Act only allows suits by "the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright", and then goes on to list six exclusive rights: reproduction, production of derivative works, distribution, and three kinds of public-performance rights (e.g. of audio transmissions, of public film showings, etc.). So, Righthaven would need to own at least one of those six rights regarding a work to sue over it, which it doesn't.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Wait, that's only five.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    Oops, I had muddled some of the three variants of the public-performance right; edited.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Can't get a bigger patent troll than Righthaven. I mean, they don't even have the patents themselves. Their business model is to sue others. You know something is wrong when you can make money from suing others alone.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
pavel_lishin 15y ago
> You know something is wrong when you can make money from suing others alone. You mean like ... lawyers?
- bdhe 15y ago
  You mean like ... lawyers? I think this is silly. Lawyers do not make money by suing people. People sue people and lawyers represent them. You can be your own lawyer, although it will probably not work out in your favour almost all cases.
  - damoncali 15y ago
    I've always said that it's not the lawyers that bug me. It's their clients.
    - evilduck 15y ago
      That's not entirely true, the term 'ambulance chasers' was coined for a reason, and there are plenty of instances where both sides still lose and only the lawyers gain anything substantial (class actions).
  - ams6110 15y ago
    Where can I sign up for your cable TV plan? Mine is filled with adverts from various law firms soliciting their services for anything from personal injuries to social security disability to asbestos-related diseases, various pharmaceutical-related claims, and a dozen other things. Yeah in the end the client is the one making the claim, but the lawyers are the ones who talked them into it.

grellas 15y ago

This decision is astutely analyzed by Eric Goldman here: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/righthaven_benc.htm http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/righthaven_benc.... This is a devastating loss for Righthaven. Among other things: 1. The core defect exposed by this ruling - Righthaven's lack of standing to bring any claims for copyright infringement - applies to all 200 RH cases pending in Nevada and likely those in Colorado as well. 2. The defect can't be fixed as to the existing cases, putting all pending RH cases in jeopardy. 3. The judge found serious procedural misconduct by RH and gave it two weeks to "show cause," in writing, why it should not be sanctioned. Court rules say you have to disclose the name of anyone who has a financial stake in the litigation. RH failed to do so concerning Stephens Media, which holds a 50% right to any recovery. It failed to do so in any of the 200 cases filed in Nevada, leaving the judge seriously disturbed by this and by other RH misrepresentations made to the court. Thus, not only will RH likely get bounced in all its cases, it will probably have to pay a pretty penny for having abused the court's processes in putting on its charade. No more devastating outcome could be imagined for a litigation campaign of this type. 4. Perhaps the most interesting tidbit that came out: in an editorial, Sherman Frederick, formerly of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, had threatened to introduce his "little friend called Righthaven" to those who published his paper's content, an unmistakable reference to Al Pacino's "little friend" in the movie Scarface, an M-16 machine gun with grenade launcher - capturing in brief the hubris behind the whole RH campaign and perhaps more than anything else explaining why this judge has decided to make RH pay for that hubris. An appeal is inevitable but, for now, RH is watching its business model crumble.

MaysonL 15y ago
I wonder, will Stephens Media potentially have a malpractice suit against Righthaven?

mcantor 15y ago

It's about time.

felipemnoa 15y ago

Unfortunately Electronic Frontier Foundation is one of the few organizations that are defending the people in cases like this. We need to do our part to help them. Please donate some money to them if you can afford it.