To avoid paying the opposing lawyers, Righthaven recently argued that fees could not be awarded; since Righthaven had no standing to sue in the first place, it argued, the court had no jurisdiction over the case at all,not even to assign legal fees.Amazing, isn't it? Claiming that because they had no right to sue, they could not be held liable for the costs that their baseless lawsuit imposed on someone else. Wow.
Conservative. Idaho. Software engineer. Historian. Trying to prevent Idiocracy from becoming a documentary.
Email complaints/requests about copyright infringement to clayton @ claytoncramer.com. Reminder: the last copyright troll that bothered me went bankrupt.
Pages
▼
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Righthaven's Chutzpah
Ars Technica reports on the latest signs of Righthaven's arrogance. They sued someone for copyright infringement. The federal judge hearing the case ruled that Righthaven lacked the right to sue, because they were not the copyright owner--and awarded more than $34,000 in damages to the defendant for his legal fees. Righthaven's response to this was:
Absolutely amazing. They have no shame.
ReplyDeleteA frivolous argument to match their frivolous lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the judge will not be pleased with this line of argument.
ReplyDeleteFederal judges do not like having their time wasted like that.
And federal judges can punish people who do so.
Since when is lack of standing to sue jurisdictional?
ReplyDeleteThe two things that get you into Federal Court are Federal Question and Diversity with a claim over ($75K+ I can't recall what the most recent limit is).
Infringement of a copyright under Federal law is a Federal Question.
Not merely frivolous, thoroughly shabby.
They would do well to consider the history of the Trevor Law Group here in Beverly Hills.
Curiously, the verification word is Styllb, which is reminiscent of pigs and lawyers.