So while I don't agree, I think I'm following the argument in regard to Apple products. But what about Samsung products, where the "exploding" functionality comes factory direct? To whom do I take those phones for repair?
"Appealing a dismissal is not the same thing as appealing a suit that's been dismissed." Any difference in those phrasings is imagined, not real.
Just like with other dismissals, plaintiffs appeal Anti-SLAPP dismissals all the time. The Ninth Circuit decided one such appeal, Simoni v. American Media, just last month. Do they win the appeal? Rarely. But does that stop them? Rarely.
No, it's not forgivable. Nothing is forgivable in a blog comment. We will summon the masses upon you and tear you to bits and put those bits in a box and put that box in another box and mail it to ourselves and then smash it with a hammer.
On second thought, we forgive you. But you're going to have to ask for forgiveness again:
"Perhaps I'm biased from my own brush with the court system": you do realize you still lost, right? You didn't beat the rap. TechDirt wants to win, not lose less badly. That's probably why they need our support more than anything (hey, Mike: "1A Victory Fund" is a bit more optimistic than "TechDirt Survival Fund").
You then say: "That is, the necessity of a vigorous defense is proportional to the weakness of one's case." A more accurate statement would be: "That is, the necessity of a vigorous defense is proportional to the funding of one's opponent." Ayyadurai has $750,000 in the bank, making Charles Harder the proverbial 600,000-pound gorilla (if you convert to British currency). TechDirt has to be serious in its response.
Finally, even if Floor64 wanted to proceed pro se, it almost assuredly cannot. While individuals are free to represent themselves, companies almost always are required to be represented in court by a lawyer.
I'm glad to read that OldMugwump's comments aren't intended snarkily. My response, agreeing with an AC that "That's... not how it works at all," also was not meant snarkily. It simply was a function of pointing out that there wasn't really anything right about the comment and that to explain everything that was wrong would take way too long. I'll tackle just three points.
First, the Wanderer is correct that ArkieGuy identifies part of the problem, though it really has more to do with "waiver" than "procedural posture". "Waiver" means that arguments not made at the proper time cannot be raised later, including on appeal. "Procedural posture" means which phase of the legal process a case is in (pleadings, discovery, dispositive motions, trial, appeal). Certain arguments only work in certain phases.
For example, OldMugwump proposes having a lawyer spend part of a two-page brief arguing, "Ayyadurai didn't invent email. See these references." Whether or not it is true, that is a completely wasted argument at this juncture because the Court is not determining the truth or falsity of any of the allegations. The Court only is deciding whether Ayyadurai has alleged sufficient facts that a jury plausibly could find in his favor. So in the motion to dismiss, TechDirt rightly argued that he failed to allege certain required facts and that other facts, even if proved, don't support his claim. If TechDirt wins the motion, Ayyadurai will have to fix the complaint. Maybe he can. Maybe he can't. If he can't, TechDirt got out with the lowest time and expense possible.
Second, OldMugwump also said: "Then shut up. Let the courts do their work." This is bad advice. Our system is an adversarial one. For the most part, the courts only decide the issues raised by the parties. They don't draft your briefs for you or tell you what arguments to make. If you do a bad job, it makes their job easy, granting judgment for the other party.
Third, Oldmugwump proposed arguing: "We want legal fees and damages for this baseless case". The American legal system generally requires each party to bear its own fees, absent a statute or contract to the contrary. That's why TechDirt's lawyers went to such lengths to show that California's Anti-SLAPP statute should apply to a case filed in Massachusetts. Try effectively explaining that to a Judge in OldMugwump's proposed two pages, after no more than four hours of research.
One final comment. As for whether this is an "all-hands-on-deck, red alert," frankly, TechDirt's response seems about right. Instead of generating a slapdash response from the cheapest lawyer on the block, TechDirt has managed to respond with two solid motions. Good lawyering doesn't come cheap.
Your second question is an absurd appeal to the extremes and not worthy of a response. Your first question already has been answered by an AC: "That's... not how it works at all." You clearly do not understand the American legal system, the concept of "procedural posture", or how appeals work.
Simply put, your "aspirin" would only be useful to treat the headache of a cease-and-desist letter, if at all. TechDirt has a much more serious condition that requires a serious response. As numerous other commenters have recognized, TechDirt has made that response and has a reasonable chance of success.
Your advice is the equivalent of refusing a $10,000 drug in favor of some aspirin that won't help because you just should let the disease run its course and get a $100,000 surgery later. Your comment about an appeal is like saying that, if surgery fails, you always can get a $200,000 transplant.
If you only can afford the first option, by all means take it. If you can't afford option two combined with option three, or even option two standing alone, this may be your only chance for survival.
In your first comment: "I rest my case…" Your assertion that TechDirt is inconsequential is belied by your continued need to comment. If you actually believed TechDirt didn't matter, you wouldn't have bothered with your first comment, much less all of the others.
P.S. Are you making up for the absence of a donation by trying to drive higher-than-usual levels of activity on this post?
What if the FBI is unreasonably denying responses to requests it knows are relatively harmless so as to consume Leopold's time, leaving him less time to draft other more "harmful" requests?
Go ahead, file a lawsuit, fight us in court. When you win, we just give you the files we already gave to Masnick. And you've lost two years fighting us—two years you could have spent filing requests we really didn't want to have to deal with.