Appeals Court Uses Bogus Sherlock Holmes Case To Slam Copyright Trolling For License Fees, Suggests Antitrust Violations

from the could-be-worth-paying-attention-to-this-one dept

Back in June, we wrote about how the 7th Circuit appeals court, in a ruling written by Richard Posner, totally rejected the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Estate's ongoing attempt to claim copyright over the character of Sherlock Holmes, even though everyone knows that all but 10 Holmes stories are in the public domain. The Estate asked the Supreme Court to put a stay on the ruling, which was quickly rejected, though it's still expected that the Estate will ask the Supreme Court to review the entire case (which the court seems unlikely to take).

In the meantime, Posner has again ruled on the case, concerning the plaintiff (remember, it was a declaratory judgment suit against the Estate), Leslie Klinger, and his request to have his attorneys' fees paid. The court grants the request but also uses the opportunity to trash the filing of bogus lawsuits around intellectual property with the hope of getting someone to pay up a small fee. In short, he bashes copyright and patent trolling pretty broadly in the ruling. Posner has been fairly vocal about his concerns with the patent system and patent trolling, but he clearly sees how it applies to copyright trolling as well. This ruling might be somewhat useful to those dealing with copyright trolling case (especially in the 7th circuit...).

Posner highlights a few recent papers about copyright trolling, and how troubling it is:
Copyright holders, the authors explain, have larger potential upsides and smaller downside risks to filing suit, since if they win they obtain damages but if they lose they don’t have to pay damages (although a loss, especially if recorded in a published opinion as in this case, may make it more difficult for them to play their extortionate game in future cases). So copiers or alleged copiers may be “induced into licensing [that is, paying a fee for a license to reproduce] the underlying work, even if this license is unnecessary or conveys non-existent rights."
He uses the example of the song Happy Birthday, which is currently involved in litigation, in a case that we've argued has some similarities to the Sherlock Holmes case. It's good to see Posner see the parallels. From there, he notes why it's so important to award attorneys' fees in these cases, otherwise trollish behavior will continue:
Unless Klinger is awarded his attorneys’ fees, he will have lost money—to be precise, $25,679.93 ($30,679.93 – $5,000)—in winning an appeal in which the defendant’s only defense bordered on the frivolous: a Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.
And then, the bigger smackdown occurs:
The Doyle estate’s business strategy is plain: charge a modest license fee for which there is no legal basis, in the hope that the “rational” writer or publisher asked for the fee will pay it rather than incur a greater cost, in legal expenses, in challenging the legality of the demand. The strategy had worked with Random House; Pegasus was ready to knuckle under; only Klinger (so far as we know) resisted. In effect he was a private attorney general, combating a disreputable business practice—a form of extortion—and he is seeking by the present motion not to obtain a reward but merely to avoid a loss. He has performed a public service—and with substantial risk to himself, for had he lost he would have been out of pocket for the $69,803.37 in fees and costs incurred at the trial and appellate levels ($30,679.93 + $39,123.44). The willingness of someone in Klinger’s position to sue rather than pay Doyle’s estate a modest license fee is important because it injects risk into the estate’s business model. As a result of losing the suit, the estate has lost its claim to own copyrights in characters in the Sherlock Holmes stories published by Arthur Conan Doyle before 1923. For exposing the estate’s unlawful business strategy, Klinger deserves a reward but asks only to break even.
This is why fee-shifting and attorneys' fees are so damn important in both patent and copyright trolling cases. It's too bad that this year's patent reform bill was killed over this, just because some short-sighted trial lawyers hate fee shifting. Posner rightly explains just why it's important. Without it, it allows this extortion (and thank you to Posner for directly calling it that) to continue over and over again, because the cost of fighting back is just too high.

Posner also makes one other point that doesn't directly impact other trolling cases necessarily, but is interesting. He suggests that the Conan Doyle Estate may be playing with antitrust fire for abusing a "monopoly" it has no legitimate right over:
We note finally that the estate was playing with fire in asking Amazon and other booksellers to cooperate with it in enforcing its nonexistent copyright claims against Klinger. For it was enlisting those sellers in a boycott of a competitor of the estate, and boycotts of competitors violate the antitrust laws. The usual boycott is of a purchaser by his suppliers, induced by a competitor of the purchaser in order to eliminate competition from that purchaser.... This case is different, in its facts but not in economic substance or legal relevance, because the boycotters enlisted by the Doyle estate were buyers from the victim, rather than sellers to it. But functionally they were suppliers—suppliers of essential distribution services to Klinger.
In the end, the court tells the Estate to pay up $30,679.93 in legal fees to Klinger, which just covers the cost in the appeals court. Klinger is still seeking more for the cost of the district court ruling as well.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 4th, 2014 @ 2:08pm

    Hooray!

    I feel like Desmond Tutu when apartheid ended ..

    Yippee!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), Aug 4th, 2014 @ 2:31pm

    So the thing I've never understood is, why is it that some lawyers hate the thought of fee shifting? Don't they still get paid either way, regardless of whether it's their client or the person who loses the case doing the paying?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Aug 4th, 2014 @ 2:38pm

    Re:

    If the clients know that they might actually have to pay for bringing a frivolous suit, and can't just bury their opponent under legal fees until they cave, then they will be less likely to order those frivolous lawsuits, meaning less billable hours and money for the lawyer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2014 @ 2:38pm

    And so it comes to an end with the Doyle estate finally losing the copyright it has held and jealously defended all these years. In tune with the efforts made, it is a rather fitting end.

    I do hope to see Leslie Klinger get every penny he had to spend to fight this back and it would be my wish that he got a little something extra for his efforts in defending what should have been un-neccessary to defend.

    The Doyle estate walks away empty handed and forced to pay attorney fees is nice but not satisfactory in my book. They knew what they were doing, right up to the point of seeking aid to financially cripple Klinger. It's not only dirty but underhanded. They should be force to pay the full tab for what it took to expose this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), Aug 4th, 2014 @ 2:38pm

    Sherlock Holmes

    would have deduced this outcome from the start and told them it was a bad idea!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Aug 4th, 2014 @ 2:53pm

    Re:

    Oh it's not quite done yet, they cannot afford to lose this one, as it will effectively gut their ability to demand 'rent' from people building off of Sherlock Holmes, and starve the parasites of revenue, so you can be sure they'll be appealing this.

    Now when the SC tells them to shove off, then you can celebrate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Aug 4th, 2014 @ 3:25pm

    Oh my, calling it extortion is a big step.
    The judiciary seems to be cluing in that much ado is being made so that a few can extract easy payments... even those not really due them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2014 @ 3:30pm

    Frivolous...

    ...What a wonderful name for a bill that eliminates frivolous lawsuits.

    I guess we either need to eliminate lawyers from Congress, or kill lobbying. Which would be easier?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    z! (profile), Aug 4th, 2014 @ 4:21pm

    Re:

    And so it comes to an end with the Doyle estate finally losing the copyright it has held and jealously defended all these years.


    The estate actually lost those copyrights some time ago, but it didn't understand or acknowledge that. This case simply confirms the loss.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Whatever, Aug 4th, 2014 @ 5:42pm

    Mike Masnick just loves censoring my posts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Aug 4th, 2014 @ 6:06pm

    Re:

    If you don't like being sent to time-out, stop acting like a child.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2014 @ 6:18pm

    Jesustapdancingchrist finally someone with sense,.. Thank You, Richard Posner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2014 @ 6:51pm

    Re: Re:

    I think this is a Whatever wannabe. He's not logged in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Aug 4th, 2014 @ 7:12pm

    Re: Re:

    By that reasoning I would expect the lawyers that truly enjoy and take pride in the profession to embrace this as a mechanism to remove courtroom clutter and the ethically challenged within their ranks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    David, Aug 5th, 2014 @ 12:16am

    Re: Re:

    Where would be the point in the Doyle estate acknowledging the passing of copyright? Basically that's like relinquishing your right to breathe. Whether or not you actually have the right, you have nothing to gain by behaving as if you didn't.

    They are basically dead without copyright proceeds. Too bad that Doyle died before Walt Disney, or they'd have been able to ride the coattails of Mickey Mouse lobbying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    spodula, Aug 5th, 2014 @ 12:31am

    Re:

    They didn't Loose the copyright.

    The court has stated they didn't have copyright to begin with as it ran out years ago. I seem to remember they were relying on some spurious theory about the fact that because there are still a few books in copyright, the characters are still under copyright. Fortunately, even the really stupidly broad copyright laws dont support that rubbish.

    The Anti-trust allegations are interesting. Wonder if they will go anywhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Aug 5th, 2014 @ 12:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Where would be the point in the Doyle estate acknowledging the passing of copyright?"

    As an apology for attempting to jealously hoard something that should have been passed on to the public a long time ago, as per the agreement when their ancestor created the works?

    "Too bad that Doyle died before Walt Disney, or they'd have been able to ride the coattails of Mickey Mouse lobbying."

    As with most of these discussions, I have to point out that it's an incredibly good thing this didn't happen. Many, many adaptations, spin-offs and other works have been built off the character and the public domain works. These works may never have existed had the estate had the right to block or demand payment.

    Our culture would have been much poorer had these leeches managed to keep everything for themselves just because they happened to be related to someone with talent. The sad question then becomes - how much other culture have we lost because Disney's company was allowed to demand their changes?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Aug 5th, 2014 @ 12:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As an apology for attempting to jealously hoard something that should have been passed on to the public a long time ago, as per the agreement when their ancestor created the works?

    Apologies don't put money in the bank, and food on the table, and if the estate can't continue to squeeze 'rent' from those building off of Sherlock Holmes, they might have to get real jobs, involving real work.

    So yeah, I'd say David hit it dead on here, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by continuing to fight, no matter how low the odds of success are, because if they lose, they're sunk, and all potential future profits are instantly up in smoke.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2014 @ 4:08am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Doubt it. He's been spamming the threads while not logged in and caught redhanded doing so.

    He's probably bored of logging in just to get his lying ass wrecked by PaulT and the others, so he's defaulted to the usual trolling methods.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2014 @ 4:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hey, give Whatever some credit. At least he cited sources for his reasoning sometimes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2014 @ 4:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm pretty sure his ass doesn't count as a source...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.