RSS
Righthaven Desperately Trying To Avoid Paying Legal Fees
from the keep-digging dept
The Righthaven saga continues. Just as it's lost in Colorado, and was told it needs to pay legal fees there as well, the company is still trying to get out of having to pay legal fees in the Hoehn case in Nevada. As you may recall, Righthaven was ordered to pay legal fees of $34,045.50 by September 14th. It did not do so. Following that, Hoehn's lawyer, Marc Randazza (whose name you're seeing a lot in these Righthaven cases), asked the court to declare Righthaven in contempt, and sought both to put the company into receivership and to allow US Marshals to seize property from Righthaven for its failure to pay. In typical plodding fashion, Righthaven has still not paid up... but has filed a motion (embedded below) asking the appeals court to put off the district court's judgment, because it believes the ruling will be overturned (ha!) and having to pay up would cause irreparable harm. The motion is worth reading. As with previous Righthaven motions we've seen, the company seems to think that mocking the district court judge is a reasonable strategy. You can feel the contempt for the judge in the filing, which I can't imagine will go over well.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Appeals Court grants the stay. It's not uncommon for appeals courts to do so, and it's unclear if the Appeals Court is aware of Righthaven's continued antics in these cases. Still, in the end, I can't see Righthaven winning, so this just seems like delaying the inevitable.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Appeals Court grants the stay. It's not uncommon for appeals courts to do so, and it's unclear if the Appeals Court is aware of Righthaven's continued antics in these cases. Still, in the end, I can't see Righthaven winning, so this just seems like delaying the inevitable.
I have an idea...
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I have a business...
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I’m looking for research...
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Who Are App Developers?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No winners
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No winners
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No winners
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No winners
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No winners
Or maybe you just meant incurring costs upon the other party in this specific trial.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever the case, I despise the way the legal system lets this company have a near infinite number of swings with virtually no accountability. It refuses to even post bond while waiting on appeal--a bond for what it may owe if it looses is pretty standard, but the refuse to do even that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No mention of a bond?
I
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply said
If that is "simply put" I would like to know what "verbose and unnecessarily complicated" means.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simply said
Read the legal filings in the case.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simply said
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simply said
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simply said
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
On a ruling where they had until the 14th of September to pay??? Am I reading this right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Irreparable harm NOT
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay up suckers and cry about it later!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is closer to you going in front of the judge, contesting the ticket, going to court, losing, being given the fine, then appealing the ruling.
You still need to pay the fine. if you win, you get it back.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So quit your whining Righthaven. You wanted to pay ball in the big courts, and now that you're getting beat, you want to quit?
Yeah, no. Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In fairness, it's more like getting a large fine you are unable to pay and having your car seized and sold to pay it off while you appeal. Even if you win on appeal, the car is gone and you just lost your method of getting to work.
(Not saying Righthaven is right overall, just saying they might win this particular motion.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Still, for those who are in a hurry, here are a few highlights:
-"The decisions on appeal demonstrate clear error by the district court and must be reversed upon review by this Court."
-"Serious legal questions are those that the court perceives a need to preserve the status quo." (Perhaps they meant "are needed", or "where the court perceives a need"?)
-"Granting a stay of the Judgment during appellate review also mitigates any irreparable harm impacting Righthaven's pending and future copyright litigation efforts."
-"Righthaven also has significant proprietary rights in its copyright infringement search engine software" (They have what now? I figured they just used Google or something.)
-"Simply put, Righthaven cannot allow these assets to be seized and liquidated while it seeks appellate review."
-"Granting a stay also serves the public interest. [...] For instance, Righthaven's appeal implicates the parameters under which non-content generating copyright holders can enforce rights in and to assigned content. The public would unquestionably benefit from additional case law that sets forth the requirements for properly conveying ownership in and to copyright protected content together with the right to sue for accrued infringement claims."
And an executive summary:
"You can't take our money because we're right and you're all wrong."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Public interest
"Consideration should also be given to where the public interest lies."
"Righthaven must further show that issuing the requested stay would further the public interest. "
"Denying stay relief, however, necessarily raises the possibility that Righthaven may be forced to file bankcruptcy and liquidation (...). This would deprive the public of this Court's analysis on a host of complex issues concerning the enforcement of copyright protected material displayed without authorization on the Internet."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public interest
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
beat them
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: beat them
Of course, there would probably be a misspelled word or two in their calling out "the threats".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: beat them
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Rearranging the deck chairs?
I didn't see a renegade cook or stripper anywhere in the mix, but it would make for a better story when they sell the rights to their story to the movie makers (it will be the only thing they have left when the judge gets done with them if we are lucky).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment