Comment by grellas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grellas | Hacker News Reader

This is for law buffs (30-page decision).

It concerns an attorney who had hired a forensic firm to support his litigation matter and who felt they had overbilled and/or churned the matter. He asked a one-sentence question on a listserv forum about whether anyone else had had a bad experience with the firm. One person forwarded the question to his spouse and the spouse forwarded it to the firm whose services were being questioned. The lawyer then went to the U.S. Copyright Office and, believe it or not, registered his one-sentence inquiry as a copyright and then sued the parties who had forwarded it for infringement!

For those interested (and I realize this is not a matter of general interest):

1. The case documents the absurd lengths to which some people, and especially a certain type of lawyer, will go to bully and intimidate through litigation.

2. The opinion itself is beautifully analyzed and written and contains a very informative discussion of what sort of short phrase is or is not copyrightable and of what the standards are for fair use (it is legal technical stuff but quite understandable).

3. The judge has some priceless jabs in the decision, e.g., footnote 7, where she considered the lawyer's point whether a one-sentence line from Shakespeare ("to be or not to be", from Hamlet) might have been copyrightable and retorted that the better inquiry here might have been about Much Ado About Nothing.

The patient will be well rewarded in reading through this one (you can skip or skim past parts that are not of general interest, e.g., the legal standard for summary judgment).

Bottom line: after 2 years of very expensive litigation, the offending lawyer is about to get socked with a massive attorney fee award that the judge already decided he will pay "for pursuing such folderol," leaving only the amount to be determined.

The fool paid $750 to register (an invalid) copyright in a listserv one-liner! Amazing, even if you don't consider the hundreds of thousands of dollars expended on this lawsuit ($70,000 claimed by the defendants, and I assume he'd claim something similar in costs if he was entitled to them).

First time I've seen judgements with a heading that is subtitled - in chinese - with a Sun Tzu quotation! It's at p5, and says (according to the translating footnote): “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War 32-33 (Lionel Giles trans., Ulysses Press 2007)

Even more wonderful is the complaint - from a lawyer! - that the alleged copyright infringement caused medical harm: "[i]n having to deal with the violation of my copyright, I have experienced aggravation of the then arthritis in my right hip, which resulted in excess pain in the hip and leg and a decrease in the range of motion in my leg and hip."

To the medical claim, the judge retorts with the quote "...which really boils down to ‘hurt feelings’". Heh.

The Chinese quotation was startling. Having read the judgement, methinks I'm allowed to copy it.

Overall the entire opinion impresses me both with the comprehensive wit and precision applied to eviscerate the claim, and with the sobering observation that current judicial practice calls for a 30-page comprehensive opinion required to reach the conclusion when "you idiot, get out of my courtroom" should have been sufficient.

In fairness, the thicket of citations and explanations are more a reflection of the way the plaintiff set up all sorts of procedural fallbacks and strategic maneuvers. Near the end the judge complains that the case could have been resolved quickly at the outset if the plaintiff hadn't bent over backwards to conceal his 'copyrighted' email as if it were something of enormous importance.

I suspect that as soon as he realized the email had been copied, it dawned on him that he would now have a reputation for casually disparaging people in public which would severely undermine his legal career both by word of mouth and in more formal ways. Deciding that the best defense was a good offense, he launched this absurd suit against the person who brought his loose talk to light. I feel like he'd have been reporting it to his local bar, and asking the accounting company he disparaged if they would settle or accept arbitration.

I wonder if he will face disciplinary sanctions on top of his courtroom humiliation? His reputation is already shot, perhaps his whole career. Note to self: reread this next time you feel cocky.

(IANAL)

The Streisand Effect should be part of every law student's education. This attorney has received this lesson far too late in his (now stunted) career.

The patient are well rewarded indeed, with asides such as note 12: 12 “Plaintiff beliefs [sic], when [White Zuckerman’s employee] used the word slander,considering the context of the comment, she really meant liable [sic]. Confusing liable [sic] with slander is a mistake people commonly make.” (2nd Am. Compl. ถ 56.) Confusing “libel” with “liable” is also a commonly-made mistake.

And this about the Plaintiff trick of a copyright app for the 1-line email: "As discussed above, Plaintiff is incorrect about the validity of his copyright because his listserv post lacks originality. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s originality argument was not objectively unreasonable. The problem with Plaintiff’s copyright claim lies in Defendants’ obvious fair-use defense. A reasonable person, particularly one who happens to be an attorney, would not have pursued such folderol. Plaintiff’s decision to proceed with this patently meritless cause of action supports a fee award."

"Folderol" is my new favorite word, and a clear improvement on "poppycock".

I was tickled by,

The Court reproduces the whole of Plaintiff’s e-mail so that the ensuing discussion of originality and fair use is not hopelessly abstract. The Court’s “unauthorized reproduction” of Plaintiff’s copyrighted work is, as Judge Posner has succinctly put it, “a good example of the fair-use doctrine in action.”

And it's not this judge's words, but this judge had the good humor to cite this,

See Mackie v. Rieser, 296 F.3d 909, 917 (9th Cir. 2002)(holding that a plaintiff’s subjective view about the harm from copyright infringement,“which really boils down to ‘hurt feelings’ over the nature of the infringement, has no place in [the damages] calculus”)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com