RSS
Handwritten Lawsuit Against Google Tossed Out Again On Appeal
from the somehow-the-Supreme-Court-seems-unlikely-to-take-this-case dept
Remember the infamous handwritten lawsuit against Google from last year? The one where the guy accused Google of revealing his social security number through a bizarre coded algorithm that involved the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team? Luckily, that lawsuit was quickly thrown out of court, but amazingly, the guy appealed. Eric Goldman now informs us that the appeal has now also been thrown out as the court notes: "Google and its founders are not state actors, and Jayne's allegation concerning his coded social security number does not constitute a violation of the Constitution or federal law." Indeed. While the lawsuits have been getting tossed rather quickly, lawsuits like these do still clog the court system and waste plenty of taxpayer dollars. In the meantime, in case you missed it the first time, here's one of the handwritten filings in the lawsuit.
14 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- French Court Fails Digital Economics; Claims Free Google Maps Is Illegal
- If Google Is Serious About Reforming Patent Mess, It Should Make A Bold Statement And Stop Using Motorola Patents To Demand Cash
- One Reason Why The USPTO Granted Ridiculously Stupid Internet Patents: Patent Examiners Were Banned From Using The Internet
- The Web Is Saved: East Texas Jury Says Eolas Patents Are Invalid
- Tim Berners-Lee In Court To Try To Prevent Patent Troll Eolas From Patenting Key Web Concepts
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
This is why I am doomed to work
I am not stupid enough to think up a lawsuit like this.
I am not naive enough to think that it is someone else fault.
I could never think up or expect anyone to believe my alligations.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Well,
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: #2
Even though *this* case is illegitimate, what would we make of legitimate cases under your proposed scheme? The impoverished could never file suit, even when it was justified.
I'd rather pay for illegitimate lawsuits than remove the right of the poor to sue the rich altogether.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: #2
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
He's worried...
He doesn't need to worry about what Google is giving away as information... HE shouldn't be giving this information away either!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
He's worried...
He doesn't need to worry about what Google is giving away as information... HE shouldn't be giving this information away either!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
hmm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: #2
We already do. They are called Rule 11 Sanctions. See Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The problem is that you can't fine somebody who has no money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: #2
We already do. They are called Rule 11 Sanctions. See Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The problem is that you can't fine somebody who has no money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: He's worried...
Since he's filing in forma pauperis (means "in the form of a poor person"), my guess is that he doesn't have a bank account, or at least doesn't have anything in one.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Delusional
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment