[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Attorney fees
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: Attorney fees |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:25:23 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) |
rjack wrote:
What is manifestly clear from case law is that once a copyright owner
repeatedly brings meritless claims that are not within the jurisdiction
> of the court, the court will assume that the purported copyright owner
> is filing frivolous, harassing actions subject to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11
> sanctions.
It's a long hard slog before a court will assume that, though:
<http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/04/florida-bar-wants-jack-thompson-disbarred-10-years-thompson-storms-out-hearing>
I would guess that a prerequisite would be for a court to
actually decide that the claims were frivolous, which is
difficult when the cases are settled before they get to
trial. I will anxiously await a courageous code grabber
who is willing to go all the way, and then we'll see.
- Attorney fees, rjack, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, rjack, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees,
Hyman Rosen <=
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/11
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/13
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/13
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/13
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/13
- Re: Attorney fees, Hyman Rosen, 2008/07/13
- Re: Attorney fees, David Kastrup, 2008/07/13
- Re: Attorney fees, John Hasler, 2008/07/13