Defendant Says Righthaven Should Pay Legal Fees 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."
Copyright law requires it (Score:2, Informative)
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:Bout time (Score:5, Informative)
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:Copyright law requires it (Score:4, Informative)
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:Bout time (Score:5, Informative)
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:Would be nice but... (Score:3, Informative)
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:Bout time (Score:4, Informative)
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:Would be nice but... (Score:3, Informative)
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.