6 ms·

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 infuria

by 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.
    - baddox 12y ago
      I agree. I think the patent system is bonkers, and these trolls are awful, but in general it seems pretty reasonable to only sue a party for damages when that party can feasibly pay the damages.
lilsunnybee 12y ago
Adam Carolla is sort of a huge douche though. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/adam-carolla-gay-mafia-is-705809 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/adam-carolla-gay-mafia... http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/06/douche-bag-of-day-adam-carolla.html http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/06/douche-bag-of-day-adam-... You don't have to look very hard to find plenty of other examples.

by 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.
  - baddox 12y ago
    I agree. I think the patent system is bonkers, and these trolls are awful, but in general it seems pretty reasonable to only sue a party for damages when that party can feasibly pay the damages.

lilsunnybee 12y ago

Adam Carolla is sort of a huge douche though. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/adam-carolla-gay-mafia-is-705809 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/adam-carolla-gay-mafia... http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/06/douche-bag-of-day-adam-carolla.html http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/06/douche-bag-of-day-adam-... You don't have to look very hard to find plenty of other examples.