A filing in the case shows that Randazza wants the court to “authorize the U.S. Marshalls to execute Hoehn’s judgment through seizure of Righthaven’s bank accounts, real and personal property, and intangible intellectual property rights [my emphasis] for levy, lien, auction or other treatment appropriate for satisfaction of Hoehn’s judgment.”
I hope this isn't a spurious question, but could this end with Hoehn owning copyrights entrusted to Righthaven?
I believe the rights being referred to are things like Righthaven's own name, trademarks, copyrights and so forth, not just what they may have acquired from other parties.
I thought they lost because they did not own proper copyrights to the works they sued over, but rather had contracts which assigned a "right to sue" which the judge could find nowhere in the statutes.
That said, I suppose they might actually own some copyrights to other things. It would be poetic justice if, as a result of trying to protect their other cases, they had acquired copyrights only to lose them in litigation.
As others have said, Righthaven appears not to have had any ownership of the copyrights to begin with. However, we do know that Righthaven has of late been maneuvering to attempt to solve this problem -- it seems possible that they did actually transfer some meaningful rights to at least some of the materials they are suing on.
I only mention this because I'm rooting for it, as the ultimate poetic justice.
Hilarious, but also sad. What's going to happen to the $120,000 payment handed down to the other folks, plus all other Righthaven suits still in court?
Does it end up being just $120,000 out of pocket to defend against a frivolous lawsuit, or can people go after the people behind Righthaven for this as well?
"Righthaven had asked U.S. District Judge Philip Pro of Nevada to stay the fee award, saying it might slip into bankruptcy if forced to pay."
So fucking what?!
This must be about the dumbest, most ludicrous reasoning I have read in a long, long time.
So you frivolously try to screw people and companies with dodgy copyright lawsuits. After the bullets of your double barrel shotgun forcefully blasted into your feet you argue that you can't continue with your "business model" when forced to pay for the consequences?
Either something here is very much out of context or those Righthaven dudes are really not the smartest cookies in the jar.
8 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 29.1 ms ] threadA filing in the case shows that Randazza wants the court to “authorize the U.S. Marshalls to execute Hoehn’s judgment through seizure of Righthaven’s bank accounts, real and personal property, and intangible intellectual property rights [my emphasis] for levy, lien, auction or other treatment appropriate for satisfaction of Hoehn’s judgment.”
I hope this isn't a spurious question, but could this end with Hoehn owning copyrights entrusted to Righthaven?
So unfortunately Randazza won't get those copyrights.
Still, I can't imagine the trademark "Righthaven" has a lot of value any more.
That said, I suppose they might actually own some copyrights to other things. It would be poetic justice if, as a result of trying to protect their other cases, they had acquired copyrights only to lose them in litigation.
I only mention this because I'm rooting for it, as the ultimate poetic justice.
Does it end up being just $120,000 out of pocket to defend against a frivolous lawsuit, or can people go after the people behind Righthaven for this as well?
So fucking what?!
This must be about the dumbest, most ludicrous reasoning I have read in a long, long time.
So you frivolously try to screw people and companies with dodgy copyright lawsuits. After the bullets of your double barrel shotgun forcefully blasted into your feet you argue that you can't continue with your "business model" when forced to pay for the consequences?
Either something here is very much out of context or those Righthaven dudes are really not the smartest cookies in the jar.