Judge Grants Defendant's Motion To Explore Alleged Fraud By Prenda Law 81
An anonymous reader writes "Prenda Law — one of the most notorious copyright trolls — has sued hundreds of thousands of John Doe defendants, often receiving settlements of thousands of dollars from each. Prenda Law principal John Steele has reportedly made a few million dollars suing BitTorrent file-sharers. Prenda Law has been accused in federal court of creating sham offshore corporations using the identity of his gardener. In other words, it is alleged that the law firm and their client are the same entity, and that Prenda law has committed identity theft and fraud. Now, a judge in California has granted a John Doe defendant's motion to further explore the connection between the offshore entity and the law firm."
Re:Capitalism. (Score:4, Insightful)
That won't maximize shareholder returns, so good luck lobbying for that.
Re:Capitalism. (Score:4, Insightful)
The person that originally bought the shares helped the company do something, eg raise capital to start producing.
Re:Capitalism. (Score:4, Insightful)
I dislike the whole mechanism of the stock market as much as the next guy; but theoretically, at least, it DOES serve a social purpose: The shareholder invests in a company, giving it the capital to expand its business. This is presumably good for the economy, and society as a whole.
In practice, of course, the "day trader phenomenon" does make the whole thing look like money for nothing. I've been told I'm completely insane by people active in the stock market, but I think it would be worth experimenting with a minimum holding time for stocks you "invest in". If you had to hold your shares for six months, you'd be more interested in the usefulness of the company and its products, and less in how some stupid statement on the morning news made them dip 2%.
Liar (Score:2, Insightful)
. Who gives billions in aid to the world? Capitalist countries. Meanwhile, the communist and extreme socialist governments are comprised of the most selfish bastards on the planet.
Altruistic Animals (Score:5, Insightful)
While I generally agree with your your comment, I disagree with the following part:
Animals show altruistic behaviours. [wikipedia.org] Even more interesting, I've read about examples like the vampire bats that share blood who will remember and punish other bats that don't share in return.
Re:Capitalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
I dislike the whole mechanism of the stock market as much as the next guy; but theoretically, at least, it DOES serve a social purpose: The shareholder invests in a company, giving it the capital to expand its business. This is presumably good for the economy, and society as a whole.
In practice, of course, the "day trader phenomenon" does make the whole thing look like money for nothing. I've been told I'm completely insane by people active in the stock market, but I think it would be worth experimenting with a minimum holding time for stocks you "invest in". If you had to hold your shares for six months, you'd be more interested in the usefulness of the company and its products, and less in how some stupid statement on the morning news made them dip 2%.
It wouldn't even need to be a 6 month period. If everybody was forced to hold shares for a single day, that would outright kill High-Frequency and Algo-based Trading. Hell, a mandatory holding period of 1 hour would probably do that.
Re:Capitalism. (Score:2, Insightful)
These only effect people who ARE algorithmic trading. The prices bounce back to their real market valuation again and again...
Re: Knight Capital
A company lost money with flawed algorithmic trading... which means someone else gained. Whats the problem?
Re: "amazing graphic"
Is this supposed to be evidence of bad things? Perhaps you could enlighten us on the assumptions that you are using to declare them bad, so that maybe we can agree with them or refute them.
Re: "Quote SPAM"
You seem to be making another assumption here, but again failing to detail what that assumption is that makes the thing that you are talking about bad.
What I am seeing is that you arent actually justifying your theory, that you are instead just declaring it correct with lots of factoids that dont actually justify your theory without the underlying assumption already in place that they are bad.
I'll accept the research over your hand waving, because thats how science works.