12 ms·

Adam Carolla won’t let Personal Audio drop podcast patent infringement lawsuit

101 points by bennesvig 12y ago

bravura 12y ago
Aren't the details from the discovery process private? Can one party in a lawsuit use information gleaned during discovery as part of its PR efforts? From a press release from the patent troll: "When Personal Audio first began its litigation, it was under the impression that Carolla, the self-proclaimed largest podcaster in the world, as well as certain other podcasters, were making significant money from infringing Personal Audio’s patents. After the parties completed discovery, however, it became clear this was not the case. As a result, Personal Audio began to offer dismissals from the case to the podcasting companies involved, rather than to litigate over the smaller amounts of money at issue." http://personalaudio.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Carolla-DIsmissal_7-29-2014.pdf http://personalaudio.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Carolla-...
- pravda 12y ago
  No, details from discovery are not private. But Personal Audio is lying in their press release. They want to drop the case because Carolla is fighting back.
  - jakewalker 12y ago
    Depends on whether or not there is a Confidentiality/Protective Order in place, and if so, what the terms of such an Order say. Almost every case of this nature would be subject to some sort of Confidentiality/Protective Order. Generally, the parties would be able to designate documents, deposition testimony, etc., as Confidential. Sometimes there are multiple levels of confidentiality baked into one of these orders (for example, a "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" designation might mean that only outside counsel can review a produced document). Generally, documents marked as such must be filed under seal, cannot be disclosed publicly, etc.
    - skywhopper 12y ago
      Surely Adam Carolla's representatives can release characterizations of the amount of money he's making off podcasting with his permission, regardless of whether or not the details of his podcasting income were subject to discovery or not. The plaintiff would reasonably not be able to release information it sought from the defendant, but the defendant can obviously release his own personal information at will.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
sjtrny 12y ago
Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8113757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8113757
dicroce 12y ago
Fuck "Personal Audio". Go Adam. The world needs more people to stand up to bullshit like this. (sorry for the language in this post, this sort of stuff infuriates me).
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Go, Adam. "We thought you had more money" is a despicable reason to try to back out of a law suit.
  - kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
    It should be grounds for classification as a vexatious litigant since it clearly indicates that they're not serious about following through with a lawsuit and are just running a shakedown operation.
    - gertef 12y ago
      If you smash my car and I sue you for $10,000 damages, and then I drop the case when I discover that you have no assets, is that vexatious litigation?
      - scott_karana 12y ago
        If you claim that 20 different people collectively smashed your car window, charge them individually for full damages, and then only decide to charge the ones who have money, is it vexatious?
        judk 12y ago
        That sounds like "joint and several liability", a standard legal model.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      I don't see why. Lawsuits are expensive, and as a plaintiff, you know you aren't guaranteed to win. So if you discover that your expected recovery (p of victory * the lesser of the expected damages or defendants' assets) is less than the cost of maintaining the suit, why wouldn't you drop it? Think about the consequences of automatically categorizing such plaintiffs as "vexatious litigants." You would have a bunch of plaintiffs in court who didn't want to be there, wasting their own time, the defendant's time, and the court's time. It seems to me that nobody would benefit from that rule except lawyers. Though if the lawyer is charging a contingent fee, they don't win either. (Of course there is a separate question of how far into the case should a plaintiff be able to drop the suit without forfeiting his right to bring it again later, but there is already a set of pretty fair and commonsense rules about this in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state procedural rules. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41) Sure, in this case Personal Audio's attempts to drop the suit might (or might not) be just another symptom of their general sleaziness, but this sort of maneuver is very common in all litigation, both legitimate and sleazy.
jobu 12y ago
The publicity Adam Carolla gets from this case is likely worth more than the legal fees from keeping the case going.
- e40 12y ago
  This. I've seen his name in places I never did before.
  - MaysonL 12y ago
    I do wonder whether Personal Audio has enough money to pay his legal fees, if he wins and gets awarded fees and damages.
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      I hope he gets punitive damages for their assertion over unpatentable subject material.
    - k0d3g3ar 12y ago
      That's not exactly how Patent litigation works. The biggest reason that congress can't get a Patent Reform bill through right now is the "fee shifting" changes that have been proposed. As it stands now, there is almost no chance that a prevailing party in a Patent troll lawsuit will get back their legal and discovery fees even if they win. That's the key reason why these Patent trolls exist. If the laws are amended to allow the prevailing party to get back their legal expenses, the majority of these frivolous lawsuits will go away and only patents with substance that can stand the test of the courtroom would survive. That's the main reason why there is a lot of negativity against fee shifting - there are a lot of organizations that have legitimate patents that don't want any form of a 'loss of power' even if it means allowing trolls to run the patent system. Go figure.
- ugk 12y ago
  Never paid good lawyers, huh? Or just trolling?
ecaron 12y ago
People can donate to his legal defense fund at https://fundanything.com/patenttroll?locale=en https://fundanything.com/patenttroll?locale=en - it has already raised nearly $500k!
- kelukelugames 12y ago
  I feel conflicted. I like Adam but I think he is rich enough to not need my help.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    He's taking on these assholes for the entire podcasting community. As it says in the article, he doesn't need to fight this anymore. Why should he pay for the entire thing himself?
  - Domenic_S 12y ago
    In his Senate video he says the case post-discovery is costing $100k/month. I'm sure Ace is rich, but 1.2MM/yr to blow on legal fees rich?
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      Net worth of $15-20MM. Plus, there’s the possibility of these guys being assigned costs.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    He may be a little wealthy, but at this point he isn't fighting for himself, he's fighting for podcasters in general.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    You're not helping him; you're sticking it to a patent troll.
    - droopybuns 12y ago
      That may be an end result, but the direct consequence of continuing to support this is that Adam's lawyers make their salary for the year.
arms 12y ago
Good for Adam. These patent trolls are reprehensible. It's hilarious that they want to pull out now that they stand a chance of losing.

101 points by bennesvig 12y ago

Aren't the details from the discovery process private? Can one party in a lawsuit use information gleaned during discovery as part of its PR efforts? From a press release from the patent troll: "When Personal Audio first began its litigation, it was under the impression that Carolla, the self-proclaimed largest podcaster in the world, as well as certain other podcasters, were making significant money from infringing Personal Audio’s patents. After the parties completed discovery, however, it became clear this was not the case. As a result, Personal Audio began to offer dismissals from the case to the podcasting companies involved, rather than to litigate over the smaller amounts of money at issue." http://personalaudio.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Carolla-DIsmissal_7-29-2014.pdf http://personalaudio.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Carolla-...

pravda 12y ago
No, details from discovery are not private. But Personal Audio is lying in their press release. They want to drop the case because Carolla is fighting back.
- jakewalker 12y ago
  Depends on whether or not there is a Confidentiality/Protective Order in place, and if so, what the terms of such an Order say. Almost every case of this nature would be subject to some sort of Confidentiality/Protective Order. Generally, the parties would be able to designate documents, deposition testimony, etc., as Confidential. Sometimes there are multiple levels of confidentiality baked into one of these orders (for example, a "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" designation might mean that only outside counsel can review a produced document). Generally, documents marked as such must be filed under seal, cannot be disclosed publicly, etc.
  - skywhopper 12y ago
    Surely Adam Carolla's representatives can release characterizations of the amount of money he's making off podcasting with his permission, regardless of whether or not the details of his podcasting income were subject to discovery or not. The plaintiff would reasonably not be able to release information it sought from the defendant, but the defendant can obviously release his own personal information at will.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

sjtrny 12y ago

Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8113757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8113757

dicroce 12y ago

Fuck "Personal Audio". Go Adam. The world needs more people to stand up to bullshit like this. (sorry for the language in this post, this sort of stuff infuriates me).

spacemanmatt 12y ago
Go, Adam. "We thought you had more money" is a despicable reason to try to back out of a law suit.
- kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
  It should be grounds for classification as a vexatious litigant since it clearly indicates that they're not serious about following through with a lawsuit and are just running a shakedown operation.
  - gertef 12y ago
    If you smash my car and I sue you for $10,000 damages, and then I drop the case when I discover that you have no assets, is that vexatious litigation?
    - scott_karana 12y ago
      If you claim that 20 different people collectively smashed your car window, charge them individually for full damages, and then only decide to charge the ones who have money, is it vexatious?
      - judk 12y ago
        That sounds like "joint and several liability", a standard legal model.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    I don't see why. Lawsuits are expensive, and as a plaintiff, you know you aren't guaranteed to win. So if you discover that your expected recovery (p of victory * the lesser of the expected damages or defendants' assets) is less than the cost of maintaining the suit, why wouldn't you drop it? Think about the consequences of automatically categorizing such plaintiffs as "vexatious litigants." You would have a bunch of plaintiffs in court who didn't want to be there, wasting their own time, the defendant's time, and the court's time. It seems to me that nobody would benefit from that rule except lawyers. Though if the lawyer is charging a contingent fee, they don't win either. (Of course there is a separate question of how far into the case should a plaintiff be able to drop the suit without forfeiting his right to bring it again later, but there is already a set of pretty fair and commonsense rules about this in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state procedural rules. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41) Sure, in this case Personal Audio's attempts to drop the suit might (or might not) be just another symptom of their general sleaziness, but this sort of maneuver is very common in all litigation, both legitimate and sleazy.

jobu 12y ago

The publicity Adam Carolla gets from this case is likely worth more than the legal fees from keeping the case going.

e40 12y ago
This. I've seen his name in places I never did before.
- MaysonL 12y ago
  I do wonder whether Personal Audio has enough money to pay his legal fees, if he wins and gets awarded fees and damages.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    I hope he gets punitive damages for their assertion over unpatentable subject material.
  - k0d3g3ar 12y ago
    That's not exactly how Patent litigation works. The biggest reason that congress can't get a Patent Reform bill through right now is the "fee shifting" changes that have been proposed. As it stands now, there is almost no chance that a prevailing party in a Patent troll lawsuit will get back their legal and discovery fees even if they win. That's the key reason why these Patent trolls exist. If the laws are amended to allow the prevailing party to get back their legal expenses, the majority of these frivolous lawsuits will go away and only patents with substance that can stand the test of the courtroom would survive. That's the main reason why there is a lot of negativity against fee shifting - there are a lot of organizations that have legitimate patents that don't want any form of a 'loss of power' even if it means allowing trolls to run the patent system. Go figure.
ugk 12y ago
Never paid good lawyers, huh? Or just trolling?

ecaron 12y ago

People can donate to his legal defense fund at https://fundanything.com/patenttroll?locale=en https://fundanything.com/patenttroll?locale=en - it has already raised nearly $500k!

kelukelugames 12y ago
I feel conflicted. I like Adam but I think he is rich enough to not need my help.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  He's taking on these assholes for the entire podcasting community. As it says in the article, he doesn't need to fight this anymore. Why should he pay for the entire thing himself?
- Domenic_S 12y ago
  In his Senate video he says the case post-discovery is costing $100k/month. I'm sure Ace is rich, but 1.2MM/yr to blow on legal fees rich?
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    Net worth of $15-20MM. Plus, there’s the possibility of these guys being assigned costs.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  He may be a little wealthy, but at this point he isn't fighting for himself, he's fighting for podcasters in general.
- DanBC 12y ago
  You're not helping him; you're sticking it to a patent troll.
  - droopybuns 12y ago
    That may be an end result, but the direct consequence of continuing to support this is that Adam's lawyers make their salary for the year.

arms 12y ago

Good for Adam. These patent trolls are reprehensible. It's hilarious that they want to pull out now that they stand a chance of losing.