2 ms·
> I. INTRODUCTION > Plaintiffs1 have outmaneuvered the legal system. They’ve discovered the > nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, a
by sudhirj 14y ago
> I. INTRODUCTION
> Plaintiffs1 have outmaneuvered the legal system. They’ve discovered the
> nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, and unaffordable
> defense costs. And they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally
> downloading a single pornographic video. Then they offer to settle—for a sum calculated to be > > just below the cost of a bare-bones defense. For these individuals,
> resistance is futile; most reluctantly pay rather than have their names associated with
> illegally downloading porn. So now, copyright laws originally designed to
> compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to
> plunder the citizenry.
> Plaintiffs do have a right to assert their intellectual-property rights, so long as
> they do it right. But Plaintiffs’ filing of cases using the same boilerplate complaint
> against dozens of defendants raised the Court’s alert. It was when the Court realized
> Plaintiffs engaged their cloak of shell companies and fraud that the Court went to
> battlestations.
Right at the top. Looks exactly like a writeup about patent trolling except for the porn part.
- chc 14y agoIt looks exactly like a writeup about patent trolling except it doesn't have anything at all to do with patents.