Monthly Archives: August 2014

You are browsing the site archives by month.

BitTorrent Copyright Update: Joined Cases Go Forward in Illinois

Judge Tharp, sua sponte, rules to allow joined cases to proceed and rejects a strict reading of D.C. Federal Court joinder analysis.

Without any motion before the court, Judge Tharp has addressed the issue of BitTorrent swarm joinder and the ruling of AF Holdings, LLC v. Does, 1-1058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014), and has found that though in extreme cases joiner may not be proper, in the matters of the pending cases relevant to his ruling joinder is indeed proper for BitTorrent copyright claims, at least for initial discovery.  The D.C. Federal Circuit is the only appellate court to address this issue and in the case of 1000+ defendants, spread out over five months, the court found that joinder was not proper.  Judge Tharp, on his own (sua sponte) rejected the strict D. C. Federal Circuit analysis and the common argument that would require all parties be in a swarm a the same time, and found that such a requirement:

…appears to overlook the fact that the pieces of the file that Doe 1 distributed directly to other Does who were in the swarm contemporaneously with Doe 1 were in turn subsequently distributed by them to the Does who joined the swarm after Doe 1 left it; in the context of a swarm, there is only a single digital file that is distributed among the members. Thus, it cannot be said that subsequent transfers of that file are even entirely “independent” of the earlier transfers; all of the transfers involve the same file and the earlier transfers of the pieces of that file facilitate the later transfers. Moreover, nothing in Rule 20 suggests that joinder requires a direct transaction between every defendant.

…permitting joinder among noncontemporaneous swarm participants does not seem novel or extreme; the law governing joint ventures and conspiracies, for example, permits plaintiffs to proceed against groups of defendants who engaged in a cooperative endeavor to facilitate an unlawful object whether or not all of the members of the group took part in all of the actions of the group and without regard to when the members joined the group.

The judge acknowledged:

Though there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue, entering a sue sponte finding of misjoinder of the Doe defendants would, in the Court’s judgment, be inappropriate at this early stage.

Though the plaintiff may issue subpoenas to determine the Doe defendants’ true identities, the plaintiff is prohibited from publishing the defendants’ identities in any way without leave.

… the Court finds that allowing the defendants to proceed by pseudonym is appropriate at this preliminary stage of the litigation, when no defendant has been put on notice of this suit. Once defendants have received such notice, the Court will revisit the issue of whether the names of the defendants in this matter may be publicly disclosed.

While the proponents of BitTorrent piracy may have expected the D.C. Circuit to end all joined lawsuits nationwide, this is clearly not the case as several districts including those in Texas, Colorado, Illinois and Washington have subsequently made clear that joined cases are going forward.

Full Text of Opinion: Dallas Buyers Club v. Does 1-25, 1:14-cv-05643 (N.D. Il. Aug. 28, 2014).

In or Out – Trademarks for Recreational Marijuana

Recreational marijuana sales, still illegal under U.S. Federal law, cannot be protected by Federal Trademarks.

The Federal Government, with a blind eye to the legality of recreational marijuana sales and use in many states, refuses to recognize any legal sales or protect the branding of any such sales by registering associated trademarks. (But they will accept the tax revenue.) At the same time those involved in the legal sale of marijuana products, unable to file for trademarks, are also increasingly the subject of trademark infringement suits. Such is the case of the recently filed Trans-High (High Times Magazine) v. Reimers, et al. case of Eastern Washington. 2:14-cv-00279 (E.D. WA. Aug. 25, 2014).

In the complaint, the publishers of High Times Magazine claim the defendants’ operation of a legal marijuana vendor doing business as High Time Station infringes their registered trademarks. Legitimacy of the complaint aside, it needs to be acknowledged that the plaintiff is seeking to enforce rights against defendants that are excluded from the system. This degree of inequality and unfair protection is something that will eventually be acknowledged. With the current “corporations are people” position of the law (right or wrong) an equal protection argument seems ripe. Why should a company (or person) be subject to the protections of a law (trademark) when they are denied access to that same law?
As the economy of legal recreational marijuana sales grows, expect the trademark system to quickly reverse course and allow the registration of associated trademarks. Also expect there to be a growing number of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) filings as people begin to legitimize the protections of their strains such as “Purple Diesel Bus” and “Brazilian Brain Bomb.”

A brave new world to be sure.

Complaint: Trans-High v. Reimers, et al. case of Eastern Washington. 2:14-cv-00279 (E.D. WA. Aug. 25, 2014).

LYING IS STILL BAD – Tesco V. Weatherford

Case: Tesco Corporation
 v.
 Weatherford International, Inc. et al, 4:08-02531 (S.D. Tx. Aug. 8, 2014)

Patent Infringement / Court’s Inherent Authority To Sanction

After a long (6 year) drawn out battle related to patent infringement in the oil drilling industry, it all goes away because of a lie.   In the Southern District of Texas, Judge Ellison has thrown out all claims by plaintiff Tesco in a rare application of the inherent powers of the court.

In short, Tesco claimed it had a patent on a piece of oil drilling equipment and sued Weatherford (and others) for infringement. One of the key issues related to an old brochure. There was some question as to whether or not the document contained an image of the patented invention and therefore invalidated the patent. (Publication of the invention more than one year before filing invalidates a patent.) To get through the point, Tesco’s attorney told the court:

The animators that actually did the brochure and that actually did the rendering are prepared to swear and testify that this is not [the] invention; and in fact, there is no doubt it’s not [the] invention.

. . .

[T]hat is what [the illustrator is] going to say; and he’s going to say unequivocally that this is not it. And so is [the other illustrator] who also worked on the rendering. Two individuals, same rendering, both will say that.

However there were irregularities with the case and even after the jury found in favor of Tesco, at least in part, the judge allowed post-trial discovery to look into certain matters, including some possible misconduct by Tesco’s attorneys. In the post-trial proceedings it was revealed that Tesco’s counsel blatantly misrepresented notable facts related to the brochure and the illustrators had no idea whether or not the invention was depicted in the brochure.

While facing nine (9) separate motions, Judge Ellison cut to the heart of the case and decided that all pending motions were moot and decided that due to the blatant fraud on the court by Tesco’s counsel Tesco’s claims were dismissed with prejudice.  At the time of the court’s ruling, no pending motion on the docket appears to have been seeking this specific relief.

After first acknowledging the Supreme Court has warned that “[b]ecause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion,” Judge Ellison went on to make clear:

 …the Court has an independent obligation to safeguard its own integrity and those of the proceedings before it…the Court reluctantly concludes that Tesco’s representations amount to an abuse of the judicial system; they are most certainly “acts which degrade the judicial system.” citing Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 23 F.3d 374, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

…not every lawyer who lies to a court will be caught, so when such deliberate and advantage-seeking untruthful conduct is uncovered, the penalty must be severe enough to act as a deterrent. Awarding attorney’s fees – even if they were to be paid by Tesco’s counsel alone – is insufficient. citing Hull v. Municipality of San Juan, 356 F.3d 98, 102 (1st Cir. 2004)

Just as with witnesses testifying truthfully under oath, the proper administration of justice depends upon counsel being completely forthright with the Court.

Judge Ellison has invited defendants to submit motions for attorney fees, and as he has already made clear that the sanction of dismissal is warranted because an award of fees would not be enough, it is anticipated that there will be a notable award of fees.

The simple lesson is that if you lie about what you have and how you got it, then odds are you do not have anything. While this case was about patents, similar rules apply to copyrights and trademarks.

In the law, as with most things, lying, cheating and stealing are (still) bad.

For the full text of the opinion: Tesco Corporation 
v.
 Weatherford International, Inc. et al, 4:08-02531 (S.D. Tx. Aug. 8, 2014)

 

Paper Fences / Bad Defenses II – de minimis copying

A part of a series of notes exploring BitTorrent copyright defenses that sound good, but do little more than churn or run up a bill. See Part One: Assumption of Risk

In Chinese they have a phrase zhilaohu (紙老虎) which translates to paper tiger. This phrase stands for something that seems fierce and powerful, but is really no more threatening than a piece of paper. The paper tiger is about imagery and illusion that is only meant to fool the gullible.  In the context of false defenses raised in response to claims, I call such defenses paper fences.

A stock or form paper fence defense that shows up in many of the answers filed both by attorneys and people appearing on their own (pro se) is the de miminis act, or claiming that the amount that was copied was less than the whole or so small that is does not matter and there is no violation.  This sounds good, but on analysis, fails in the realm of BitTorrent copyright claims.  Most significantly, a de minims defense starts off by essentially stating, “I did it but….”

First, a brief review of what constitutes a de minimis act: A de minimis act is one that is so minor as to be inconsequential. This sounds like a good thing to say if you want to argue you only copied a little bit of a movie. But with an understanding of what it means and how it is used in the law the “paper” aspect of this defense becomes apparent. Traditionally de minimis is used for things like in the context of how long a defendant can be detained in a traffic stop, such as to ask one or two more questions, making a short delay a de minimis length of time. United States v. Stepp, 680 F.3d 651, 662 (6th Cir. 2012). Or in the case of a claim of littering when the act involved two matches. People V. Feldman, 342 N.YS.2d 956 (N.Y Crim. Ct. 1973). It is also a standard applied pollution or contamination regulations where the contamination is so minor as to be a non-issue, especially in light of new technology that allows the detection of just a few molecules. Ober v. Whitman, 243 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir., 2001).

But certain matters are often exempt from de minimis exceptions, and these include things like use of excessive force claims or civil rights violations. Wilkins v. Gaddy , 559 U.S. 34, 130 S. Ct. 1175 (2010); Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2011).

To the extent de minimis has been applied in the context of copyright, it has generally been in the analysis of similarity, or as a component of fair use. These have been identified as copying that has occurred to such a trivial extent as to fall below the quantitative threshold of substantial similarity, known as trivial copying, and as might be relevant as a component of a “fair use” defense. Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70, 74-75 (2d Cir.1997).

In essence, the de minimis defense is applicable when the question is how similar the copy might be from the original, such as how much Song-A sounds like Song-B, or as one part of the “fair use” defense, which had a multi-part analysis that includes the quantitative amount copied as one of the factors. (Fair use is a whole other issue, and for other reasons beyond this note similarly not applicable to BitTorrent copyright infringement.)

In the context of BitTorrent, a de minimis or “partial copy” assertion are simply not valid defenses. As the U.S. Supreme Court held, “[A] taking may not be excused merely because it is insubstantial with respect to the infringing work…. `[N]o plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.'” Harper & Row v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 565, 105 S.Ct. at 2233, quoting Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 56 (2d Cir.1936). Thus, there is no de minimis (or the like) defense to BitTorrent infringement.

Granted, a de minimis type argument may be applied to argue for the statutory minimum of $750.00 in damages, but this is not an affirmative defense to liability. And the costs to raise the defense in an answer and deal with the associated motions will likely be thousands of dollars, paid for by the defendant.

As a reminder – The defense to a BitTorrent copyright infringement claim is the defense that the defendant did not do it and was not involved in any way. The rest is often just paper fences and, “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” – Macbeth.

 

Paper Fences / Bad Defenses – Assumption of Risk

In Chinese they have a phrase zhilaohu (紙老虎) which translates to paper tiger. This phrase stands for something that seems fierce and powerful, but is really no more threatening than a piece of paper. The paper tiger is about imagery and illusion that is only meant to fool the gullible.

In litigation, there seems to be a growing trend to the use of affirmative defenses which are really just paper tigers, these might be called paper fences. These paper fences are not real defenses, just extra words that someone can throw on a page to justify their bill. Sometimes I wonder if even the people that file them on behalf of their client’s believe the false hope these paper fences represent.

Where these seem to be showing up more frequently are in the BitTorrent copyright cases. There are blogs and message boards where such things get shared and passed around among attorneys, and while everyone likes to share an idea, rarely does anyone share its failure. Someone dreams up an idea that sounds good, then word gets passed around and pretty soon everyone is adding the newest paper fence to his or her filings without paying attention to the rulings of the courts.

Assumption of Risk is one such paper fence that has no place in BitTorrent copyright defense. First, it is good to understand what the defense really means. An assumption of risk defense essentially states the plaintiff is involved in such risky behavior that it is expected that defendant will be reckless, as such the plaintiff accepts a possibility of injury.

Now look at why this does this not belong in a BitTorrent copyright defense or any copyright defense for that matter.

– Assumption of risk first dictates that the defendant injured the plaintiff.   The argument is the plaintiff, whose rights were infringed knew or should have known people would try and copy their work. To its logical conclusion the defendant comes to court and says, “I did it, but they should have expected me to do it.”  To allow an assumption of risk defense in copyright law would negate all copyright law.

– Assumption of risk is only valid against reckless conduct. A defendant will still be liable for any willful conduct. In BitTorrent infringement there is no reckless conduct. A defendant does not accidentally download a torrent file. All BitTorrent copyright infringement is willful.

There are other reasons, but suffice it to say assumption of risk has no place in copyright infringement cases and is nothing more than a paper fence that sounds good enough only to be sold to client to justify a bill. Just a little research reveals that assumption of risk has never prevailed as a copyright defense. As Judge Hegerty recently ruled, “Because an “assumption of risk” defense does not apply to copyright infringement claims, this defense cannot succeed as a matter of law and should be stricken.” Malibu Media, LLC v. John Butler, 1:13-cv-02707, (D. Col. Aug. 13, 2014).

As I review these cases look for future notes on other paper fences that often show up in BitTorrent Copyright cases including: Failure to State a Claim, De Minimis Infringement, and the counter claim of Non-Infringement, all of which seem to be making the rounds and do little more than run up costs and fees.

There really is only one defense to the copyright infringement claim, and that is the defense that the defendant did not do it and was not involved in any way. The rest and often just paper fences and, “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” – Macbeth.

For the full opinion of Judge Hegarty cited above: Malibu Media, LLC v. John Butler, 1:13-cv-02707, (D. Col. Aug. 13, 2014).

Kanye Wins Kanye v. Coinye Cryptocurrency Case, Largely by Default  

No surprise that Kanye has won the Kanye v. Coinye cryptocurrency case. While the names are similar and there is no doubt that Kanye would be expected to go after something so close and associative, contrary to media spin this is not a case of a big media star going after the little guy who just happens to be too close for comfort. In this case it appears that from day one all efforts by the defendants were to create a Kanye West associated digital currency and trade on his name and likeness, including putting his image on the representations of the coins.

From the Compliant:

Defendants have willfully and admittedly traded upon the goodwill and notoriety of Kanye West, one of the most famous entertainers and brand names in the world.

 …

Defendants have publicly stated that: (i) they “chose to represent Kanye because he is and always has been a trendsetter, and he’s always keeping things unique;” and (ii) they were “really not sure how Kanye [was] gonna react.” Moreover, Defendants cowardly remained anonymous because “[Kanye West] really isn’t someone we want to piss off’ and that they would “love if Kanye named dropped `Coinye’ . . . We don’t want to pay him off to name check us, but it’d be sick if he does so.” Defendants also boldly asserted that “Anarcho-capitalism is coming, it can’t be stopped. Whether it has a symbol that looks like a dollar, a dog, or a cartoon picture of a rapper, it’s all the same thing.”

 Of course the biggest insult might be equating Kanye West to a dog or a cartoon, but legally that was a secondary issue at best.

Initially the case had some extra buzz by naming Amazon.com as a defendant, but they were quickly dropped. The complaint is worth reading, linked below. A few of the defendants entered into consent judgments, but the majority were defaulted as per the order.

Move along now.  Nothing more to see here.

 

Complaint: Kanye West v. McEnery, et al (Coinye) S.D. NY :14-cv-00250

Consent Judgment: Kanye West v. McEnery, et al (Coinye) S.D. NY :14-cv-00250

Default Judgment : Kanye West v. McEnery, et al (Coinye) S.D. NY :14-cv-00250

 

Reinventing a Broken Wheel – International Investigations and Bad BitTorrent Defenses 

“There is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:4-11

An attorney’s job is to know the facts and law and argue the facts and the law. But if the facts are against you and the law is against you, then you need to be creative. If not to win, to at least justify the time and billing for your actions. And this leads to a lot of creative arguments, and sometimes plagiarism, even if only to plagiarize other failed arguments.   It is hard for an attorney to make a living telling clients, “You don’t have a case, and there is nothing I can do.” (Or more accurately, nothing I can bill you for…) So an attorney needs to come up with something that at least looks good on paper. After all, a client is rarely able to do the proper legal research to know that an attorney only managed to dig up a dead argument, polish it off, and sell it again as new.

An instance of this recycling can be seen in a recent spate of filings in BitTorrent litigation arguing investigations need to be licensed by the state of the defendant or the case should be thrown out on a technicality.

The argument goes something like this: Since most states have laws that require an investigator be licensed for their investigations to produce admissible evidence, an unlicensed investigator’s evidence should not be admitted.

This argument sounds good, but like many of the other defenses that get sold to defendants it does little more than provide temporary false hope and drive up legal fees that are usually then paid by the defendant. The courts that have looked at this have universally rejected this argument on a number of grounds. The internet does not recognize a state line, so such limitations are largely meaningless in the digital world.

As stated several years ago by Judge Nancy Gertner in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum:

“The Defendant raises a number of arguments why MediaSentry’s monitoring was illegal under state and federal wiretap laws, as well as state licensing requirements for private investigators. See Mass. Gen. L. ch. 272, s. 99(A); Mass. Gen. L. ch. 147, s. 22. Given that MediaSentry did not conduct its monitoring from Massachusetts, does not maintain a presence in the state, and the computer on which MediaSentry detected Tenenbaum’s file-sharing was located in Rhode Island at the time, Massachusetts’ wiretapping and licensing provisions would not seem to reach the conduct at issue at all. See Connelly Aff. (document # 866-5); Cox Comm. Subpoena Resp. (document # 866-9). Regardless of which state’s licensing requirements are invoked, the Court previously considered a similar motion to strike in London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Arista Records LLC, Case No. 04-12434, holding that “[n]either the rules of evidence nor the Fourth Amendment bar the use of evidence arguably unlawfully obtained by private parties in their private suits.” Jan. 9, 2009 Mem. and Order at 3-4 (document # 230). Tenenbaum’s remedy for a search he believes illegal under state laws is not exclusion of this evidence, but a separate action against MediaSentry or its employer under the state statutes he identifies. That leaves only the federal wiretapping provisions. See Electronic Communications Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq. Here, Tenenbaum proposes a difficult analogy when he compares MediaSentry’s activities to illegal eavesdropping. The Defendant made his computer’s “shared folder” visible to the world of KazaA users, for the very purpose of allowing others to view and download its contents — an invitation that MediaSentry accepted just as any other KazaA user could have. The electronic communications that ensued were conducted with the consent of both parties. As a result, it is bizarre indeed to describe MediaSentry’s decision to examine and record its counterpart’s IP address as eavesdropping, as though federal law prohibited MediaSentry from determining where the data sent to it from Tenenbaum’s computer originated. It is as if one received a letter in the mail, but was not allowed to look at the return address.This principle makes no more sense on the internet than in the non-digital world, and it is not encompassed by the Act. The type of IP information transmitted by KazaA and recorded by MediaSentry is accessible to almost anyone with a computer. Even if viewed as an “interception” — a characterization that the Court accepts here only as a hypothetical — MediaSentry’s monitoring activities fall within the statute’s safe harbor for interceptions by a party to the communication. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(1), 2511(2)(d); see also R.I. Stat. s. 12-5.1-1 et seq. (one-party consent rule parallel to the federal statute). Tenenbaum transmitted the digital files at issue to MediaSentry, making it a party to the communication, and he has not shown here that any interception occurred with the purpose of committing a “criminal or tortious act” under state or federal law. Id.; see also Order on Motions in Limine, Capitol Records Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, Case No. 06-1497 (D. Minn. June 11, 2009).
The Motion to Suppress MediaSentry Evidence [853] is DENIED.” (Gaudet, Jennifer)

In the Tenenbaum case the defendant fought to the bitter end, even trying to take their arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court, but still ended up owing $675,000 in damages.  Since Tenenbaum no judge has held differently. But the argument still sounds good and attorneys are still trying to sell it to their clients.

Exemplar Recent Opinion: Malibu Media, LLC, v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.94.99.165, 8:14-CV-659, Dkt. 16, (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2014) :

Excerpt:

Plaintiff’s claim is plausible on its face and should not be dismissed. Furthermore, Doe Defendant does not have standing to challenge the subpoena issued by Plaintiff to ISP Time Warner Cable as there is no right or privilege associated with an internet service subscription. Finally, a protective order is inappropriate as sufficient safeguards were put in place when the Court granted Plaintiff leave to conduct early discovery.
Accordingly and upon consideration, it is RECOMMENDED that:
(1) Doe Defendant’s Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Action with Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpeonas or Enter Protective Order, with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 8) be DENIED.

Joined BitTorrent Copyright Suits Go Forward in Washington

Over the last two years there have been a number of twists and turns in the world of BitTorrent copyright infringement cases.   In early 2013 the Prenda scam was uncovered where a group of attorneys were revealed to be using shell games to operate a honeypot scheme for people that downloaded porn via BitTorrent.  Courts across the nation clamped down on all BitTorrent cases as a precaution.  More recently with the news that the major studio film Expendables 3 may have lost tens of millions, if not more due to BitTorrent piracy, BitTorrent cases are again receiving renewed interest, though now in a different light.

This whole cycle is readily observed in Washington State, where initially joined cases were allowed by the courts.  Following Prenda, the courts took a close look at the cases and at one point dismissed joined cases across the board.  Elf-Man LLC v. Cariveau, No. C13-0507RSL,(W.D. Wash., Jan.17, 2013).  But on review and scrutiny, the Court reversed itself and cautiously allowed the cases to proceed. Elf-Man LLC v. Cariveau, No. C13-0507RSL, (W.D. Wash., Aug. 7, 2013).

More recently the Washington courts have again affirmed that it will allow joined cases against BitTorrent infringers in a case involving the piracy of Dallas Buyers Club.

Dallas Buyers Club v. Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-01153 (WAWD).

Opinion of the court allowing the case to proceed:Dallas Buyers Club – 2:14-cv-01153, Dkt. 8; Order Granting Expedited Discovery

Edit:  Also pending:
Dallas Buyers Club v. Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-01336 (W.D. Wa.).

===

October 2, 2014:  Washington is maintaining its position that joined cases are proper as of Oct. 1, 2014 with continued orders that these cases will go forward joined.
Order Granting Discovery – Dallas Buyers Club v. Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-01402 (W.D. Wa., Oct. 1, 2014).

Overzealous Defendants Ordered to Pay

The recent Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) case is often held out to be a victory in the fight against patent trolls or people being sued for patent infringement.  But patent trolling is turning out to be one of those things like voter fraud.  Yes it happens, but it seems that for all the hype the actual problem is nominal compared to the attention it gets.

In an interesting turn of events, in the recent case of Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., et al., the Octane Fitness decision ended up helping a patent rights holder filing suit against an infringer.

Romag Fasteners makes magnetic snaps and fasteners which were used by Fossil to manufacture handbags.   Romag owned a relevant patent and trademark.  Fossil was caught using counterfeit fasteners, some of which even carried the trademark and the patent number, and a suit followed. However, Fossil did not wish to admit to liability and put on a vigorous defense throwing everything it could at Romag.  Despite a notable fight, the simple facts were Fossil was caught “red-handed” and at the end of the case, “the Court concludes that Defendants’ pursuit of its indefiniteness invalidity defense, and its failure to formally withdraw its remaining invalidity defenses until after the close of evidence weigh in favor of an award of fees in this case.”

In other words, trying to enforce a bogus patent will result in an award of costs and fees for a defendant, and so too will raising pointless defenses that merely burden the parties and case.

Full text of opinion: Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, inc. et al D. Con. 3:10cv1827, August 14, 2014

And Some People Complain About Suits for Money…

 

The Cable, a national news outlet for Nigeria, is reporting Nigerian singer Stella Monye advocates music pirates should be punished by amputation.   She is quoted as saying:  “Cutting their fingers off will stop them, by the time you cut off two people’s fingers others will stop.”

Maybe she was speaking in jest, but in parts of Nigeria interfering with the oil industry, homosexuality and adultery are punishable by death sentences.  So who knows if downloading a song in Nigeria might soon cost you a finger.

Original story at: http://www.thecable.ng/amputate-pirates-stella-monye-proposes | TheCable

 

And for a song by Ms. Monye – http://youtu.be/lLdC_ONUObk