The only thing about the anti-marking statute is that case law says a judge can apply as a penalty a fraction of a dollar per product. So it really depends on the Judge's discretion. If a judge decided that a plaintiff only gets $.0001 per product, it might not be worth it to sue.
I just skimmed through that complaint and couldn't help but laugh. It seems like a 5 year-old wrote that. I love his handwritten relief is asking for "Please justify the incidents..."
First, it would be funny if he were suing under copyright in LA County court, because it should be dismissed right away because you can only sue in Federal Court for a copyright claim. Moreoever, though technically you have a copyright upon creation of an expressive work on tangible medium, you still have to register or try to register your copyright with with Copyright office before you sue.
And the chair design would probably not qualify for a copyright itself. A copyright is a protected expression work that can be transferred onto another medium, in other words, copyright is generally medium neutral. The design of chair could be protected by a design patent, but I doubt he has one of those either and he would still have to sue in Federal Court.
This type of ban is referred to as a "prior restraint". The short answer is that a prior restraint is almost always unconstitutional. In other words, the government always loses. Moreover, Supreme Court have used a "least restrictive means" test, meaning that it is the burden on the government ordering the prior restraint to show there is no other way of asserting their state interest without the need for preventing publication. Governments invariably fail.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by rbilotta.
The only thing about the anti-marking statute is that case law says a judge can apply as a penalty a fraction of a dollar per product. So it really depends on the Judge's discretion. If a judge decided that a plaintiff only gets $.0001 per product, it might not be worth it to sue.
Re: Re:
I just skimmed through that complaint and couldn't help but laugh. It seems like a 5 year-old wrote that. I love his handwritten relief is asking for "Please justify the incidents..."
What a delusional guy
First, it would be funny if he were suing under copyright in LA County court, because it should be dismissed right away because you can only sue in Federal Court for a copyright claim. Moreoever, though technically you have a copyright upon creation of an expressive work on tangible medium, you still have to register or try to register your copyright with with Copyright office before you sue.
And the chair design would probably not qualify for a copyright itself. A copyright is a protected expression work that can be transferred onto another medium, in other words, copyright is generally medium neutral. The design of chair could be protected by a design patent, but I doubt he has one of those either and he would still have to sue in Federal Court.
I would love to see the complaint.
Almost certainly an incorrect decision
This type of ban is referred to as a "prior restraint". The short answer is that a prior restraint is almost always unconstitutional. In other words, the government always loses. Moreover, Supreme Court have used a "least restrictive means" test, meaning that it is the burden on the government ordering the prior restraint to show there is no other way of asserting their state interest without the need for preventing publication. Governments invariably fail.