Re: Attorney fees

[rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> > As far as I remember, Daniel Wallace actually tried some "all the way"
> > approach in the U.S., and it was thrown out in the end because his
> > theories did not even amount to a recognizable complaint.
>
> He doesn't count. First of all, he did it pro se, and you can't
> expect to succeed in such a complicated area without being or
> having a lawyer. Second of all, he was suing on antitrust terms,
> while naturally being unable to show any damages to the public.
>
> He appeared to be under the impression that antitrust law means
> to protect competitors, not the public. He was wrong. Because of
> the licensing terms of free software, it is impossible for its
> price to be raised after competitors are driven out of business.

I'm sure Wallace sued under the antitrust laws instead of testing the 
GPL under copyright law for the same reason the SFLC dimisses its cases 
immediately after filing and before any answer or other motions can be 
filed. The Copyright Act's provision in 17 U.S.C. § 505 for awarding 
attorney fees can leave you liable for more than a quarter of a million 
dollars before preliminary motions to dismiss have been resolved. 
Preliminary Rule 12 motions to dismiss along with discovery have become 
a lucrative art form for legal firms in which the "lodestar" billable 
hours may be dramatically inflated. Copyright litigation can bankrupt 
all but deepest pocket litigants.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

-- The hardest part of fleecing a sucker is convincing him to show his
gratitude for getting screwed --