Righthaven Stops Showing Up In Court 122
Fluffeh writes "This story has gone from funny to sad. Following copyright-troll Righthaven's recent whipping by a judge, it now appears the company has just given up altogether. CEO Steve Gibson is working at another job (while being investigated by the Nevada Bar) and main lawyer Shawn Mangano apparently has completely stopped responding to all attempts to contact him, even by the court. All this has resulted in the key appeals in its cases to be dismissed 'for lack of prosecution.' Last Thursday it also had a key case closed, with prejudice, driving another nail in its already buried coffin."
What? (Score:2, Insightful)
"This story has gone from funny to said."
Another quality slashdot article!
Re: (Score:2)
Well at least isn't wasn't a lazy copy-n-paste!
driving another nail in its already buried coffin? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that's a bizarre twist to that metaphor...
Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (Score:5, Funny)
The court actually dug the coffin up, drove another nail into it, and reburied it. Yes, it was a lot of work, but the point needed to be proven that badly.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds more like they dug it up and fired it into the sun.
Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (Score:5, Funny)
It's like in Moby Dick, the coffin was built for someone, then that someone didn't die, then it was nailed shut and used as a bouy, then it was dragged down to the depths without any human intervention, then ironically the person did die when the coffin would have saved them, but then without any human intervention it erupted back to the surface, saved someone else's life, and then... well, was probably discarded again, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, the coffin which already was buried was exhumed, had one additional useless nail driven in, and - well, it's something to do with hamburgers or cars I'm sure.
Re:driving another nail in its already buried coff (Score:4, Funny)
Leave the sun out of it. They're being investigated for enough crimes as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like they dug it up and fired it into the sun.
No, just drove another steak through it's heart and doused out with holy water again.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds more like they dug it up and fired it into the sun.
No, just drove another steak through it's heart and doused out with holy water again.
Some garlic sauce added, I presume? Or maybe it was frozen in the shape of a stake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I recognize typos is because I make so many of them myself ...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
But that would have implied that they had one to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore the Court? (Score:5, Funny)
I wish I could ignore court orders and get on with my life. Somehow I don't think that works for people.
Re: (Score:2)
You could ignore orders from RIAA. "Pay us $5000 settlement cost, or else appear in court on this date ______." Ha. Yeah right. Trashed.
Re: (Score:2)
SCO and Righthaven merger (Score:5, Funny)
And in other news Darl McBride has announced that SCO will be merging with Righthaven to "Leverage synergistic energies to protect our customers"
Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (Score:5, Funny)
Dear lord, what if they synergize their core competencies?
Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (Score:5, Funny)
Then they'll be able to fail *twice* as epically!
Failure, of course, being their core competency.
Re: (Score:1)
But if you fail at failing, aren't you actually successful?
Re: (Score:2)
Norman, Coordinate!!!
[ head asplodes ]
Re: (Score:2)
They will be twice a efficient in transferring money to lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
You can bet if they do, Robert Enderle will be there to cheer them on and say that this is the death knell for Linux.
--
BMO - Drunken keynote speeches for EVERYBODY!
Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (Score:5, Funny)
They'll use best practices and outside-the-box thinking to rightsize the cloud-based agile empowerment solutions with viral social messaging, of course. Do I have to think of everything around here?
Re:SCO and Righthaven merger (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, I got Bingo!! Awesome, thanks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Do I have to think of everything (Score:2)
"...main lawyer ... apparently has completely stopped responding to all attempts to contact him, even by the court" should be met by "Court offers a $5,000 contest to find him."
Compel them to show up? (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but is there some way to compel them to show up? Not to force them to prosecute their claims, but rather to compel them to answer for their frivolous lawsuits, for example?
I mean, lodging a lawsuit against someone causes emotional harm and waste of time and money if they did it with malice. Can there be restitution with any of their cases for the injured party? Although I know it may be very hard to prove...
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not familiar with common law, but in continental law, you may be taken in by the police if you fail to answer your summons for a trial, or even taken in the night before, and held at the precinct overnight, then led forward handcuffed by an officer. The court has to order this specifically, and I've only seen this used in case of private persons, so I'm not sure it could apply in case of a corporation (after all, the legal persona applies to the whole corporation, who is there to summon by force in this
Re: (Score:2)
For civil suits?
Re: (Score:3)
When the plaintiff doesn't show up, one of three things can happen:
1. The defendant moves for dismissal and wins
2. The defendant can ask for a continuance* so that the plaintiff can show up
3. The Judge gets angry and orders a arrest warrant or fine for contempt upon the plaintiff.
When the defendant doesn't show up, see #3
*unless you were trying to get sued and set a precedent, this never happens
Re:Compel them to show up? (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but is there some way to compel them to show up? Not to force them to prosecute their claims, but rather to compel them to answer for their frivolous lawsuits, for example?
Yes, the defendant can file a counterclaim. If they still don't show up, the defendant wins, automatically. Then, there's the little detail of collecting on the judgement, but take it one step at a time...
Re: (Score:2)
In most states, if somebody doesn't pay a judgement, then the plaintiff can do things like have the sherriff show up at their office and take anything of value up to the amount of the judgement. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the individuals have already collected very handsome salaries and let the company go into bankruptcy so the actual money is hidden behind the corporate veil.
Re: (Score:2)
Piercing the corporate veil in Nevada is nearly impossible.
Re:Compel them to show up? (Score:5, Interesting)
In most states, if somebody doesn't pay a judgement, then the plaintiff can do things like have the sheriff show up at their office and take anything of value up to the amount of the judgement.
Like this priceless gem: A Florida Couple 'Forecloses' On Bank Of America [npr.org]
Over the past few years, we've heard plenty of horror stories about bungled foreclosures. The one of Warren and Maureen Nyerges, from the Naples, Fla. area, is just as bad. In 2009, they bought a home with cash, yet in 2010 Bank of America tried to foreclose on them. It took two months of phone calls and eventually court intervention to clear up the misunderstanding.
In December, a judge ordered the bank to pay the couple $2,500 in attorney fees. But months went by and the bank never cut a check. So, the Naples Daily News reports, Nyerges hired a lawyer, who pursued a levy, and this past Friday the showdown was on: The Nyergeses showed up to a local branch of Bank of America with the sheriff, the media and some movers with a truck:
"I'm either leaving the building with a whole bunch of furniture, or a check or cash or something," the attorney, Todd Allen, vowed.
... An hour later, the bank cut a check.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Compel them to show up? (Score:5, Informative)
If the plaintiff doesn't show up, the defendant does not even necessarily have to file a counterclaim to get a judgment in their favor. If the case is abandoned for lack of prosecution, the defendant can generally get a judgment for at least their costs and, depending on the type of case, for their attorneys' fees.
With a judgment in their favor, the defendant could then call the plaintiff (now judgment debtor) in for a debtor's exam. If the debtor fails to appear, that's contempt of court and generally a warrant for the debtor's arrest is issued.
Re: (Score:2)
Several of the cases already have righthaven owing money to the defendant, which they are unable to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who's defending those lawyers, but if they are defending themselves, this would likely be contempt of court.
Is this the end? (Score:5, Insightful)
With all Righthaven did, I wonder if this will simply be the end to the lawsuits. If so, this would be a really bad thing. When all is said and done, if the courts just shut down the lawsuits now, the folks behind Righthaven will have been able to sue a bunch of people and then walk away without any penalties. Sure, Righthaven will be shuttered, but there are indications that they shuttled assets elsewhere first to avoid paying debts. If the courts allow this, what's to stop any company from forming a shell company (to protect the parent), conducting a series of lawsuits, and simply dissolving the shell if things go badly? The downside here seems low and the upside (if you are successful in forcing people to settle) seems high. There needs to be a full investigation here with appropriate charges filed/fines issued to make sure other companies get the message that this is unacceptable.
Re:Is this the end? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called piercing the corporate veil, and if that happens, the principals are directly responsible for any and all judgments against the company.
It has to be pretty serious fiduciary irresponsibility, though, at the criminal level.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but I believe this may qualify.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
According to wikiedia Righthaven owes one gentleman (a blogger) $34,000 in a court case where they lost. It would be a shame if he spent all that money defending himself, but then never sees any of it. Yet another reason I'm opposed to limited-liability corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I tend to go through a friend of mine for matters like this. His phrase when collecting is something akin to "34 grand or 34 teeth".
Works better than the average court order. No limitation of liability possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that your friend's name is either Guido or Vinny
Re: (Score:2)
I used to actually know a debt collector named Guido. We used to work at the same company. It used to crack me up every time I get to work his name into a call. Comedy gold... (Ok, I admit it, I'm easily amused.)
Re: (Score:2)
Get with the times.
His name is Ivan.
Re: (Score:1)
I would be difficult to collect 34 teeth from most adults: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_(human)#Permanent_teeth [wikipedia.org]
I guess this is somewhat of a limitation on the liability ;)
--BBD
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's the incentive. He'll just keep digging deeper until he finds something tooth-like.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe me, he can be very convincing. He will keep digging until you spit out 34 teeth. One of them looked a bit like a chip from a rib and one looked funnily small like a child's milk tooth, but hey, I'm no monster, I don't dictate where you take your teeth from.
beating a dead horse is sometimes necessary (Score:5, Informative)
What seems like beating a dead horse is necessary in this case. You must continue to beat the horse even after the horse is long dead. It's like a course of antibiotics, it may seem like the infection is gone but if you stop too soon a resistant strain might come back.
Re: (Score:3)
Beat the dead horse, then stake it through the heart, sever the head, fill it with garlic, and bury it separately from the body, preferrably across a body of water...
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck up careers (Score:4, Insightful)
So these guys just fucked their careers for life, for what? A promise of some $$$ at the end of the line....
Re:Fuck up careers (Score:5, Insightful)
I like England's "loser pays" law.
I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm, have you heard of it?
Re: (Score:2)
... or at least I hope it was sarcasm!
Re: (Score:2)
Suggest: min(a,b)
Re: (Score:2)
Doubling the already substantial financial obstacle of hiring a lawyer for the average joe, and having an effect on the corporation indistinguishable from zero.
It's better than the naive implementation of 'loser pays', but this is damning with faint praise.
Re: (Score:3)
How about you pay twice your own lawyer's cost. Once to your lawyer, once to the winner's?
If you win against a corporation who put a million dollar dream team together your lawyer just made bank. If you lose then the corporation still doesn't realize the rewards necessary to afford the dream team. I feel like it wouldn't be worse than what we have now and would actually encourage more lawyers to act pro-bono for the poor, at least in cases where they may win.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you ever have rights against rich entities anyway?
Besides, with loser pays organizations like the EFF can turn donations into loans instead of gifts.
The EFF can throw gobs of money at the case, win it, and get their money back to reuse on the next case.
Re: (Score:2)
... or lose it, and get crushed into oblivion.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.
You don't pay their actual costs, you pay reasonable costs. What the judges determines to be reasonable costs for that kind of legal action. If the defendant paid for top dollar lawyers, or a team of lawyers, they'll have to pay the difference themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't. I don't have the millions of dollars to pay a high end legal team that a corporation might be able to afford, so "loser pays" would boil down to "I have no rights against rich entities". No thanks.
It doesn't work like that. The repayment of costs by the losing side is subject to a check against whether it is equitable and reasonable, and it is the judge that makes that determination. The legal principle of equitability is why costs are normally awarded (basically, why should you have to pay if you've not done anything wrong?). The legal principle of reasonableness strongly encourages the two sides to the case to bring equivalent legal firepower; yes, bring too little and you lose, but bring too much
Re: (Score:2)
That isnt how loser pays works.
Equitable conduct is assumed on both parties, and if you spend millions in a petty case and win, the judge is unlikely to allow full recovery of your costs.
Re: (Score:2)
They feel the need to stick it to the man, they believe in a get rich scheme or both. They go out full cock until until reality hits them like a train. They loose everything.
I have seen a case where a Guy who was running a business sold it to an other company just as long as he would stay the manager. So they kept him, during this time he got Pissed off because he had to deal with bosses who were telling him to do things he didn't want to do (BTW he sold his company because he co
Re: (Score:2)
>>>stole companies data
Stupid. He deserved to lose his money, because he's a thief.
Criminals can be strange that way (Score:3)
They sometimes seem to be just attracted to crime, rather than turning to it as a last resort or because it makes so much money. A great example is a guy here locally who would break in to newspaper dispensers to steal the money. Well this was fairly hard work, they are built nice n' sturdy and this guy didn't have some tool to bust them open real fast. Also it required a good bit of walking around to get to them, there aren't all that many and they aren't densely packed. Of course the biggest thing is the
Re: (Score:2)
Freakonomics had an article on this in the original book, most street drug dealers still live at home because they make less than they would at McDonalds.
Re: (Score:3)
Fucked their careers? They managed to patent troll and bully a couple people, lose EVERY SINGLE effin case and get away with it.
I foresee a great future as MAFIAA lawyers.
And so the two most responsible people walk away.. (Score:5, Insightful)
..with hardly any punishment for the thousands of dollars of losses they inflicted on their victims. Makes me sick.
Re: (Score:3)
That seems to happen a lot. *trynottomentionwallstreet* *trynottomentionwallstreet*
The worrying thing is that it basically legitimizes patent trolling in that those wanting to organize a patent troll company now have a template to work from where they know they have a good chance of sponging lots of money and then escaping cleanly. Sure, the ending needs a little work, but most of the template is now proven solid.
Re:legitimizes patent trolling (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the real danger here. The people on the receiving end of the suits had their year wrecked. Then everyone whisks away, "Nah, I don't think I'll bother to respond to the court anymore".
Then next year another one will rise, with a slightly different spin.
Re: (Score:2)
Victim that lost $50,000 can work through the courts, and when the courts find Righthaven has zero cash and can't return the money, shoot former CEO in head. (It's Vegas. People disappear all the time.)
"gone from funny to sad"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Still funny.
Re: (Score:2)
This is great! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely unraveled? Hell, it's a fucking template.
1. Found limited liability company.
2. Sue the crap out of people.
3. If you lose, fold and start over.
4. If you win, profit.
Hold them in contempt (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And that is the true shame. It's so much work to flatten skunks the old fashioned way.
Not Steve Gibson of SHIELDS UP, right? (Score:1)
In other words, NOT this guy -> https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 [grc.com] of "Shields Up" online security fame, correct?
* Just asking for clarification, photo's not the same guy I remember (and to cover "the" Steve Gibson (I say "THE" because he's well-known & this can 'trash' HIS good name)).
APK
P.S.=> I hope not! I state that mainly because despite the b.s. many others tried to spread about the guy over time? He's pretty damned good (his early work on disk checkers showed me that from the DOS days, a
A haven for the greedy and dim-witted, maybe (Score:2)
Last One Out of the Court Room (Score:2)