Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Defendant Says Righthaven Should Pay Legal Fees

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the win-or-lose-we'll-make-you-pay dept.

The Courts 83

Hugh Pickens writes "On June 20 District Court Judge Philip Pro found that Kentucky resident Wayne Hoehn was protected by fair use in posting a Las Vegas Review-Journal column on a sports website. Now Hoehn's attorneys have submitted a $34,000 bill and asked that Judge Pro require Righthaven to pay it. The $34,000 could be just the tip of the iceberg for Righthaven, should the Democratic Underground prevail in what likely will be a far larger fee demand."

cancel ×

83 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bout time (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Cowar (1608865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671012)

I think that fee shifting should automatically be a part of any civil case. During the settlement, dismissal, or awarding process, the judge should be required to ask both sides if the bringer of the suit should pay legal fees, or a percentage of. As it stands, when you sue, most of the time you have nothing to lose and everything to gain if you get the right lawyer. Change that, break the cycle, and sanity might have a fighting chance.

Re:Bout time (2)

sureshot007 (1406703) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671044)

But what happens when you try to sue a large company, and they win because of their superior, and extremely expensive lawyers?

Re:Bout time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671070)

you appeal.

Re:Bout time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671122)

Only if you pay a lawyer for me.

Re:Bout time (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671100)

What about SLAP(is it called that ?) ?? or something similar. I am not sure what SLAP is, but sometimes I saw people mention this, it's a way of dealing with rich and powerful adversaries in court.

Re:Bout time (4, Informative)

DarkFencer (260473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671130)

SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Its meant to silence or intimidate critics, who may be completely accurate in what they are saying, just through legal costs. They don't even expect to go to trial, they expect to push a settlement through fear of legal costs.

Someone who wins a case against a company/individual using SLAPP tactics definitely deserves to have their legal fees paid by the 'SLAPPer'.

Re:Bout time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671168)

What happens is you lose the case. You should have had better lawyers, if you wanted to win.

Expensive lawyers are expensive because they're good. Good laywers become expensive because they establish a record of winning.

There's corruption in any human endeavour, jurispridence is no exception. But the system has many checks and balances and corruption is usually discovered and when it is, it is punished. In the long run, good lawyers aren't good because they cheat or bribe or know the secret handshake. They're good because they win.

If you sue a large company, you must think you have a good case. If your case is good but you can't afford a good lawyer, you might be able to attact one to work for a percentage. If your case is good but you can't afford or attract a good lawyer, well, sucks to be you.

The system isn't perfect but it's the best one devised so far. Some countries employ the 'loser pays' provision. It makes sense and would appear to curb excessive sue-and-hope style litigation, as the parent suggests.

Re:Bout time (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671366)

If your case is good but you can't afford or attract a good lawyer, well, sucks to be you.

Yeah, that's awesome. Justice for those that can afford it, for everyone else, oh well, stop being so poor already.

It's reasons like that why companies like Walmart are able to commit labor violations in every state with impunity, because they know no lawyer is going to touch any case against them unless it's egregious (i.e., results in serious injury or death) and/or a slam dunk, and their million dollar lawyers are able to ensure that pretty much no case against them is ever gonna be a slam dunk.

Re:Bout time (3, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672002)

Yes, but another way to say that is "the real world sucks, and a lot of people and businesses are assholes. Despite this, we want the common recourse to be disassociating from the assholes, and not griping in courts of law. Only egregious or slam-dunk cases should be brought before judges. For everything else, just stop being that person's friend, neighbor, customer, or employee. Our society is litigious enough."

It's a sliding scale. The balance is hard to find because there are no bright lines.

Re:Bout time (3, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672466)

For everything else, just stop being that person's friend, neighbor, customer, or employee.

But how does that solve the problem of our legal system being used by the big dogs as an impediment to justice instead of facilitating it? There needs to be fairness in the courts. Like anything else having to do with our government anymore, all too often cases are decided not by what is just but instead by who has the most money to throw at the problem. Consider what happens whenever Apple's Lawyer Brigade fires off a Cease and Desist letter; a lot of the time, that in itself is enough to scare someone into submission, because regardless if the person is technically right, the odds of them actually getting justice are slim to none. It goes against the entire spirit of equality in the eyes of the law.

Of course the simple answer will always be a glib "the world sucks, just find another job/friend/partner/whatever", but it does nothing to solve the problems that cause these situations in the first place. What incentive is there for a rich company or person to not break the law? Why should the individual respect a legal system that metes out justice according to the amount of capital the participants have?

Re:Bout time (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672628)

That may be, but this is one instance in which it doesn't have to be that way.

Re:Bout time (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674400)

It doesn't really help that the rich often can stay rich and keep the poor poor because "The one who has the gold makes the rules", and often lobby and campaign and sometimes even outright bribe the political process to keep things that way.

For example, subverting the trickle down process by hiring a shitload of H1-B's who are so poor they're willing to sell their souls for less than we'd demand for even an arm or a leg of a job.

Re:Bout time (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671590)

If your case is good but you can't afford a good lawyer, you might be able to attact one to work for a percentage. If your case is good but you can't afford or attract a good lawyer, well, sucks to be you.

I'd like to tweak that slightly. If your case is good, but you can't attract a good lawyer, it probably wasn't that good.

Re:Bout time (2)

marnues (906739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673302)

That's a nice sentiment, but it's really not very true. There are far too many variables other than seeking real justice.

Re:Bout time (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674074)

I'd like to tweak that slightly. If your case is good, but you can't attract a good lawyer, it probably wasn't that good.

Attracting good lawyers generally requires money, thus putting you back to the parent poster's square one....

Re:Bout time (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674494)

You can have a perfectly good case that a lawyer won't touch with a ten mile pole, if said case is "beneath them"

A lawyer in the million dollar bracket for cases won't stoop to help you win a 10k lawsuit.

You may also have a lawyer the system has by the balls and he can't really dare to side with you. If the company you wish to take action against has somehow corrupted the system, such as by having shills on the local bar association, even a slam dunk case may be risky to even touch.

Re:Bout time (1)

Gloizen (914313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674768)

Incorrect.

What if you, and dozens of people like you, were ripped off for $1k - $2k by a small fraudulent corporation, and you have solid evidence to prove it? Lawyers typically charge at least $3k to go to trial, so they'll tell you that you have a good case, but that it doesn't make financial sense for them to represent you. Most lawyers (understandably) won't consider a class action lawsuit unless there are $ hundreds of thousands at stake and a high chance of winning.

But if you try to bring your good case to court without a lawyer against a company that has a lawyer, you have very low odds of winning, even if you are legally savvy. If you were going to be required to pay the other side's legal fees if you lose, you'd be crazy to even try. With a "loser pays winner's costs" system, the fraudulent corporation would have even less incentive to stop defrauding people.

Re:Bout time (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36682796)

That is called small claims court and does not require a lawyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_claims_court [wikipedia.org]

They have a limit of 15k (generally) and require that neither party is represented by a lawyer.

Re:Bout time (1)

Gloizen (914313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36684980)

Of course you file initially in Small Claims Court. The problem is that the corporate defendant will usually exercise its right to remove the case from SCC so that it can be represented by a lawyer.

Re:Bout time (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672072)

Some countries employ investigative judges, who actively investigate the case themselves, rather then actively limit themselves to what lawyers of each party bring before them (and how).

This system has some issues of its own, such as activism among judges, or easier succumbing to corruption, but it most certainly addresses the case of fair representation far better.

Re:Bout time (4, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671284)

Perhaps, then, legal fees should be capped at 2x the rate that the losing side is paying. This way if you're paying $5,000 for legal representation and they're paying $1,000,000 (just to pull numbers out of thin air), you'll be responsible for $15,000 ($5K for your lawyer and $10K for theirs).

Hollywood accounting (1)

nten (709128) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671404)

Then large companies would begin paying lawyers low retainers/fees, but with tons of benefits. Thus even if you win you'd only get twice minimum wage for your lawyer fees.

Re:Hollywood accounting (2)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672958)

Then large companies would begin paying lawyers low retainers/fees, but with tons of benefits

The IRS has managed to figure out how to audit such things as "benefits" for the purposes of taxing it as income. The methods and expertise to do this already exists.

Re:Bout time (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671310)

I see what you are saying and I think any such law should have something to address that problem -- specifically that such a case cannot exceed that which the plaintiff has paid for its representation or a reasonable value by fair market standards.

That's where this stuff gets kinda tricky though doesn't it? What if someone sued a drug company and to make their defensive case, they hire not just lawyers, but outside labs to perform studies and all sorts of things like that.

It's really difficult to make law that keeps the playing field level because these corporate "people" have much greater resources than mere mortals. So perhaps a full-on exemption to prevent corporations from being eligible for a "loser pays" system.

Re:Bout time (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671318)

They you're a fool, and easily parted from your money.

If you want legal representation to be either prohibited or court appointed in order to level the playing field, then fair enough, but that's a very different argument.

Re:Bout time (2)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671454)

Just put a limit on the amount you can be asked to pay back based on how much you yourself put in to it. If I sue, say Sony, for removing features from my PS3 and only pay $5000 on a lawyer, then my risk would be limited to having to pay say $6000 of Sony's legal fees since using $100,000 of lawyers fees would be a rather excessive defense to my $5000 lawyer.

Re:Bout time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671838)

$5000?

Not done much litigation lately I'm guessing?

Re:Bout time (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672210)

And you think Sony's only paying their lawyers $100k? That'd barely cover Friday's donuts.

It's called a 'hypothetical example.'

Would you have instead preferred "spent $x on my lawyer, my risk would be $1.2x because their $20x lawyers would be an excessive defense"?

Re:Bout time (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671664)

The sensible option to me would be to have fee shifting limited to the amount you spent on your own lawyers, possibly plus interest if it was a lengthy trial.

Re:Bout time (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671670)

How about each party in a suit is only allowed to have as much representation as the other? If $SmallGuy can only afford one lawyer, then $LargeCorp only gets one lawyer. If $LargeCorp wants to have five lawyers, then they foot the bill for $SmallGuys extra four.

Re:Bout time (3, Insightful)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671900)

That would lead to lousy legal decisions. Except in cases of large corporation versus large corporation you'd wind up with legal cases being argued by Billy the Intern and Asok the Recent Graduate. Here in the US where case law is the real law, poorly represented cases can have devastating consequences to future suits.

Re:Bout time (2)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671912)

But that's not the usual case. Usually the trouble is big companies suing here and there because even if they lose they can financially bleed their opponent to death.
In other countries, loser paying court costs is the standard practice.
Given that a victory in a lawsuit is supposed to represent that the side was right, why should it ever be that the "winner" , in these cases defendant, in a lawsuit ends up in a worse situation than before he won?
It essentially reduces to someone being legally able to pay money to cause a loss to someone else.

Re:Bout time (1)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673844)

But that's not the usual case.

When you're Joe Shmoe suing a successful business, much less a corporation, it's always going to be the case as 1) the business has more money and 2) the business can write off attorneys fees as a business expense.

Re:Bout time (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36677860)

No , i meant there are more cases of companies abusing this and screwing normal people than normal people with legitimate lawsuits who lose them (and thus would get screwed over by the new system)

Re:Bout time (1)

nosferatu1001 (264446) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671954)

Loser pays should be the default, but with teh judge deciding the appropriate proportion the loser should bear. If you significantly outspend your opponent in order to win you may not receive 100% of your fees.

Similar principle is applied int he UK; all sides are *required* to mitigate costs before and during a case. Hiring a QC for a small civil dispute is unlikely to see you receive all your costs back.

Re:Bout time (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673738)

In south africa its slightly different. The arguments presented during trial/hearing can end with a an argument for costs (It must start with it as part of the pleadings). During judgement, the judge hands down his/her decision and also orders someone (if any) to pay costs (No value specified, simply "costs on an attorney/client scale").

The winner then takes his itemised legal bill to a /taxing master/ who examines it and makes sure its in line with what the court thinks a lawyer should charge. The taxing master himself is a qualified (albeit highly specialised) lawyer. He puts a rand value on the bill, and this gets served to the loser. The loser can then hire then own taxing master to dispute the bill. This hearing then gets heard in a court with another (different, specialised) judge, who decides what the final bill will be.

It works very well in practice - you generally get perhaps 2/3rds of your costs back, and the court feels that that is a good thing as it ensures that fewer people are willing to go to court even if they will win, as they will still be out 1/3rd the bill.

Re:Bout time (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672500)

But what happens when you try to sue a large company, and they win because of their superior, and extremely expensive lawyers?

Make the "loser pays" amount take into consideration the resources of the loser. If a rich guy (or corporation) sues some poor sap and the poor sap loses because he only got a "free" lawyer, then the rich guy gets basically nothing because the loser has no resources to pay.

But if the poor guy wins, the poor guy's lawyer gets probably way more than their standard legal fees because the rich guy has the resources to pay for expensive lawyers, and yet still lost.

Maybe that'll balance things out. If you sue Sony and your $10K lawyer is battling Sony's million dollar lawyers and you win, Sony has to fork over millions in legal fees to your lawyer because they have resources you don't.

Not a perfect system, but I suppose having an army of "poor" lawyers nipping at the heels of those with resources might encourage more lawful behavior...

Re:Bout time (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674712)

Yes. The fee should be capped.

Really that's overly complicated. A better suggestion would be that the plaintiff pays an equivalent of their legal fees to the defendant if they lose.

Although loser pays is the system just about everywhere else, and they don't seem to have this problem. Individuals successfully sue large companies all the time.

Re:Bout time (1, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671114)

I hear this suggestion all the time and I don't see how it solves the problem whatsoever. As it is, people can't afford to defend themselves even against the most simple and obvious cases that should be open and shut in their favor. Requiring the loser to pay accomplishes nothing. Big businesses and organizations can currently afford lawsuits more than individuals or small businesses and they can afford to pay for your and my shitty lawyer in the event that their attempts to intimidate you through the court system were to backfire on them. In both cases, the problem still comes down to the unbelievable expense in anything regarding the legal system and one person always having a financial power - and therefore more leverage and options - period.

Re:Bout time (4, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671804)

In Germany the plaintiff has to name the whole value for the case (it's called "Streitwert", amount in dispute), and all the lawyer's fees are set according to a fixed table in relation to that number. The percentage of the "amount in dispute" that gets finally awarded is taken as a measure for how successful the plaintiff was, and the lawyer's fees are then awareded according to that percentage. So if you are suing for 1 million and get 10 thousands in the end, you are considered 99% unsuccessful, and you have to pay 99% of the lawyer's fee for both sides.

Re:Bout time (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671156)

In a perfect world this would work.
but what if you are the person who was wronged and feels the only way to get justice is through a lawsuit. However, if you had to go up against a large corporation, would you really do it with this kind of stipulation hanging over you?

Re:Bout time (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671368)

For every Harry Hardluck with a genuine grievance against Goliath Megacorp, there are dozens, hundreds, of Deborah Dickburgers signing their names on to pro-forma blackmail demands from the firm of Shark, Shyster and Slitpurse. The real solution is for courts and bar associations to sanction the most egregious hustlers, but making Debbie think twice before being party to their antics would be a good first step.

Re:Bout time (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671826)

... from the firm of Shark, Shyster and Slitpurse.

One of my favourite lines from Breaking Bad [wikipedia.org] : "You don't want a criminal lawyer. You want a criminal lawyer."

Re:Bout time (3, Informative)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673776)

Well, if you like cutting off your nose to spite your face, I suppose you could see it that way. Because your viewpoint relies on the "Jackpot Justice" myth, which is just that - a myth [youtube.com] . Actual frivolous lawsuits are actually dismissed at trial. Don't be a chump for corporate immunization from accountability.

Re:Bout time (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 3 years ago | (#36676392)

the firm of Shark, Shyster and Slitpurse

And there I was thinking it was Dewey, Cheetham and Howe.

Re:Bout time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671204)

Better yet make the lawyers pay, for the courts time. 100% of the cost of all the people required for that case. For everyone it's a lose lose proposition.

Re:Bout time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671386)

I think that fee shifting should automatically be a part of any civil case.

Your "solution" guarantees that companies with money to burn can do (even more of) whatever they want to smaller entities. And their lawyers would actually be encouraged to increase the standard fees they charge simply to act as a deterrent. No lawsuit, no matter how strong the case, is guaranteed, and if the risk of losing is bankruptcy then nobody would contest anything.

Re:Bout time (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671434)

A better idea might be to have a discussion of the legal fee structure prior to the start of litigation. Another option would be to have a cap on how much the group or person bringing the suit based on how much they spend on their legal team. The idea being that it should be possible to mount a reasonable defense for close to the same amount as being spent on fighting for the suit.

Re:Bout time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671500)

Wouldn't retainers get in the way of that?

Keep an expensive (and thus hopefully good) group of lawyers on retainer, when a case arises, he'll work "pro bono" for his client.

Re:Bout time (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672706)

A decent judge should be able to see through that ruse, and take appropriate action.

Would be nice but... (2)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671884)

Right now, the trial bar and lawyers in general have a stranglehold on governments and they won't want to do anything that jeopardizes their revenue streams. Healthcare cost go up largely due to the lack of tort reform. Drugs are expensive in this country because the companies are building in the cost of a future lawsuit. OB-Gyn's have completely moved out of some cities because the malpractice insurance costs are stupid high. The "english" system of loser pays makes a lot of sense. That being said, what if the government controlled the legal fees just like some politicians want to control gas prices or other commodities? Maybe the EPA could declare lawyer-speak as toxic to the environment. Oooo....coool.

Re:Would be nice but... (1)

imric (6240) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672508)

Problem with that is that 'tort reform' is generally code for 'no penalty for malfeasance and pain and suffering are worth nothing'. IOW, if a doctor cuts off your balls instead of cutting out your appendix he would be on the hook for the cost of the operation. A company that dumped poison on a park that killed children would be on the hook for cleanup and funeral costs. And so on.

Re:Would be nice but... (1)

bk2204 (310841) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672644)

The state of Texas adopted an amendment to its constitution to limit damages in certain cases because the health care industry claimed that costs, including malpractice insurance, were too high. Years later, malpractice insurance has not gone down significantly. It never did. Texas has enacted laws aimed at tort reform as well, and those have been similarly unsuccessful in lowering costs.

I understand that there are people that exploit the system, but the techniques you describe are ineffective and actually harm people who have legitimate claims.

Re:Would be nice but... (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672730)

Healthcare cost go up largely due to the lack of tort reform.

Wrong. Studies have shown that Tort Reform is not the panacea people bring it up to be. In comparing the costs of procedures in various states with and without tort reform, the presence of Tort Reform had no statistical impact upon the price.

Re:Would be nice but... (3, Informative)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672894)

Healthcare cost go up largely due to the lack of tort reform.

Popular Republican talking point, but factually incorrect. Tort reform would certainly save some money, but it's not even close to being a major source of waste.

Drugs are expensive in this country because the companies are building in the cost of a future lawsuit.

Also bullshit. Drugs are expensive in this country because of the obscene profit margins and the equally obscene amount spent on advertising. Reduce those to more normal levels and drugs could easily cost less than half of what they do now.

--Jeremy

Re:Would be nice but... (3, Informative)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674148)

Drugs are expensive in this country because the companies are building in the cost of a future lawsuit.

Drugs are expensive in this country because there are no checks on drugs prices.

If the drugs were expensive because of a high cost of production, then they would be expensive regardless of the market they're being sold in, but that's not the case. The same drugs that cost $5.00 per pill here are sold for the equivalent of .50 cents in other countries, because the $5.00 price point would price it out of the market there. It's the same reason why a DVD of a particular movie costs $20 here in the states, but you go somewhere in Southeast Asia and you can buy a legit copy of the exact same film for $5....if the movie cost the equivalent of $20 there, nobody would ever buy it.

Re:Would be nice but... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36677960)

Healthcare is expensive because big pharma is granted exclusivity without any sort of restraint on pricing for things you often can't just decide to live without.

For example, colchicine. It's been used for gout and various other ailments for nearly 200 years in it's purified form and since before Christ in a less refined form. Since it pre-dated the FDA, it was grandfathered in without an approval process. In 2008 it cost 9 cents a pill or about $5/month for gout treatment.

In 2009, URL Pharma completed some minor clinical trials and was granted an exclusivity deal by the FDA as a reward for kissing ass so well (the study provided no useful new information). Immediately they sued other generic producers and jacked the price to $4.85/pill (over $300/month). It's the same stuff with the same legal risks as it was in 2008 when it cost 9 cents.

Re:Bout time (2)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672568)

Agreed. Without this any company that has a legal team can just start suing any citizen that crosses it, regardless of whether they hope to win or not, just to stick them with legal fees. Great way to bully customers into submission - "Oh yeah, you're going to post a bad review about us online? We're suing you, have fun paying those legal fees."

Good deterrent (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671024)

I like this as it would discourage these particular trolls from their 'income dragnet' of just accusing as many people as possible.

Don't worry, they'll appeal (0)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671052)

It's only a matter of time before they get to a judge who is either in the pocket of the IP mafia, or who was appointed by a politician who's in their pocket. He'll put an end to all this "fair use" nonsense.

Copyright law requires it (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671060)

One thing about copyright laws is that the prevailing party in a copyright suit is entitled (as a matter of law) to attorney fees, as well as costs. Learned that from the NYCL.

Re:Copyright law requires it (3, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671392)

Well, not quite entitled:

In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorneyâ(TM)s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

17 USC 505.

It's up to the discretion of the court, it's limited to a reasonable amount, rather than the actual amount, and under some circumstances (e.g. an ordinary infringement suit where the copyright wasn't registered in a timely fashion, and the plaintiff prevails) fees are not available at all.

Re:Copyright law requires it (1)

warchildx (1695278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672108)

so someone deemed to have started [frivolous] lawsuit, pays the court fees for the defendant. if you/company simply [loses], everything stays as normal. ex: if you are filing in east texas and lose because you dont have a leg to stand on, then you get slapped with the fees from the defendant.

The linked article was good, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671068)

I can't wait to repost a portion of the Las Vegas Review-Journal's article on it.

Defendant also won on lack of jurisdiction (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671132)

While the defendant won on fair use, the summary does not say that defendant would have won on lack of jursidictional grounds in that Righthaven did not have rights to sue when they filed the lawsuit in the first place.

And ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671158)

They will just bankrupt/shut down the company and open another one. The people perpetrated this shit, will not be prosecuted. So ?

Re:And ? (1)

bk2204 (310841) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672686)

One of the articles pointed out that the EFF has filed complaints of barratry and champerty against Righthaven. Lawyers that file suits that they should know to be baseless (barratry) to try to exercise rights that they should know the plaintiff doesn't have (champerty) are very likely to be sanctioned or disbarred.

Automatic Fees be the wrong incentive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671378)

While I very much want to discourage these types of lawsuits, having a policy/law of paying the winner's fees might only encourage more frivolous lawsuits, especially where the fees are much higher than the liability. As it stands, lawyers won't take a case on contingency when the potential payout is very low: it's not worth their time, so there is a an opportunity cost discouragement to what would otherwise be a large volume of lawsuits. For example, a fender bender with a $1k in damages, no personal injury beyond another $1k in medical bills, many lawyers would not bother with. If you could get your legal fees paid for outside of the settlement though, it would be a different story: the loser could end up paying thousands of dollars in legal fees to the winner over a mere $2k in actual damages.

Nationalize the legal system (2, Funny)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671514)

Simple solution, nationalize the legal system.

Re:Nationalize the legal system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671704)

Yeah, because our experience with the Public Defenders system has worked out so well.

Re:Nationalize the legal system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671980)

But imagine if that pool of public defenders included all the criminal lawyers, not just a narrow slice of them.

Re:Nationalize the legal system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36673250)

Dude what up with that sig. I am an atheist republican. Although I don't like some of the positions of "religious right" element of the party it is people like me who serve to moderate the party. Just wish there were more like me. Seems so many in the "sensible" middle have chosen to leave their party and become "independents", leaving the Democrat party to the bleeding heart left fringe and the Republican party to the far right wingers.

Re:Nationalize the legal system (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673438)

Then you're a sucker.

Righthaven doesn't have right to sue (1)

DocJohn (81319) | more than 3 years ago | (#36671580)

More importantly, the judgment found something glossed over in the summary -- the court did not recognize Righthaven as an entity that had any significant rights in the copyright, and therefore could not sue in the first place.

That's because the agreement with Stephens Media was so specific in carving out Righthaven's rights to the copyright that the only right they really had, according to the court, was the right to sue others to protect the copyright. This is not a recognized transferable right.

That's a pretty big finding. You can't just assign your copyrights to another company for the sole purpose of suing others.

--
Psych Central
http://psychcentral.com/ [psychcentral.com]

Re:Righthaven doesn't have right to sue (2)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672404)

Actually I think you could assign the copyrights for the sole purpose of suing others. What the judge found in this case was that Stephens Media didn't assign the copyrights. They retained ownership of the copyrights themselves, assigning only the right to sue without assigning any of the copyrights in question.

Re:Righthaven doesn't have right to sue (1)

marnues (906739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673464)

Seems to be exactly what the GP said. Only you missed the part where Stephens Media thought they could do that.

Re:Righthaven doesn't have right to sue (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36673812)

Seems to be exactly what the GP said. Only you missed the part where Stephens Media thought they could do that.

Not quite.
GGP -> "You cannot assign the right to sue without assigning copyright"
GP -> "Fine, simply assign copyrights for the sole purpose of suing."

Re:Righthaven doesn't have right to sue (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36708042)

Not quite. Stephens Media would have to assign the copyrights, period. Or grant Righthaven an exclusive license to eg. publish the stories. Basically, for Righthaven to gain standing Stephens Media would have to give up some or all of their rights to those works and hand them over to Righthaven. And, as the court said, the "right to sue" is not one of those rights.

Think of it like the light from a flashlight. The light doesn't exist independently of the flashlight. If you want to give someone the ability to light up a dark room, you have to give them the flashlight. The light isn't some independent thing, it exists only as part of the flashlight and goes where the flashlight goes. Lack the flashlight, you lack the light. The "right to sue" over copyrights is the same thing: part and parcel of ownership of or control over the copyrights themselves. It goes where that ownership or control goes, and can't be separated from them.

Re:Righthaven doesn't have right to sue (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36672418)

Yup, this ruling has pretty much cut off at the knees what could have been an insanely dangerous new kind of business model. I hope Righthaven gets countersued into a black hole.

What day is this?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36671936)

A 3D chocolate printer, Righthaven facing it's own legal fees... man, there's sure to be unicorns farting rainbows somewhere today!

Loser Pays... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36672354)

this is why we a loser pays solution in our court system.

If they didn't sue DU... (1)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36674416)

... and get the democrat bloggers all riled up, I wonder how far Righthaven would have made it.

They also sued a bunch of other personal blogs, not just that political website. I hope Righthaven eats it in court and has to pay their legal fees. One of the bloggers they sued is known to me, and he's really been hit hard by it. Democratic Underground? Sure, to a point, but they very easily raised some funds. My friend? Not so easy...

Randomly Assigned Lawyers (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36677244)

You really want to mess with corporations out spending the little guy. The fix would be everyone is randomly assigned 1-2 lawyers and that is it. You could even make it a little better and have lawyers list their specialties and pull randomly from that pile for legal cases. It would instantly cause these out spend you into the poor house cases to disappear. It would also mean you better have a pretty good case and be pretty sure you can win because you don't know what lawyer you are going to get.

The other thing you could do is left the judges step in and say look clearly corporation XYZ is trying to spend the little guy into the ground, so here is a cap of what you can spend for this trial and if your caught playing games with pay rates to get more people the lawyers will be censured and you instantly loose the case. Lawyers repeat that crap and they are disbarred. That would instantly put an end to the spending game and it would put lawyers asses on the line to make sure things were fair. Judges could (I think they already do) have the ability to assign lawyers pro-bono so a judge could assign a lawyer that was as good as the corporations lawyer in that specific area of the law. That would also balance the scales as well.

There are easy ways to fix this, but the legal system isn't about to fix itself when it would cost lawyers money. It is up to the people to demand a change and so far it seems the average person could care less. That is typical of most people, if it doesn't effect them then they don't care about it.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?