This has nothing to do with patents. The article describes a case of copyright trolling, which is a completely different matter.
Of course there are similarities between copyright trolls and patent trolls: Both acquire certain rights and try to extort money out of small actors for allegedly infringing use. In both cases the troll's calculation is that the proposed settlement fee is just below the cost of an effective defense.
Well, this case is a little more disappointing than you might think. Prenda's in so much trouble because they falsely represented to the court that they had an unrelated, copyright-holding client, when in fact they held the copyright (and kept all the money) themselves. No one is challenging the model of "own the copyright to a porn movie, and then sue people who download it" (although it has also been suggested that Prenda was the source of torrents for its movies, which would complicate its claims).
It cannot be proven that Prenda was responsible for the torrent in the first place (an IP address is not enough for proof of identity) but it's pretty much settled at this point that Prenda paid for the production of the pornography, had no intention of ever releasing the pornography for consumption, and posted the original torrent so that they could go after "infringers."
>The Prenda "porn trolls" were really
just an annoyance to the ISPs until
they sued the companies; that put
AT&T and Comcast in a situation
where "they will be strongly
motivated to win the case and
ensure that no one tries this tactic
again," wrote Lee.
If they hadn't sued Comcast and Bell, would the judgment be different?
The judgement on the case would probably not be much different, considering that the Prenda lawyers have also lost various other cases without naming any ISPs as defendants.
This order discusses a motion by Comcast and AT&T for attorney fees, which the judge deems appropriate because (a) Prenda unnecessarily elongated the process by naming the ISPs as co-defendants without any valid claim, and (b) as a reprimand for Prenda'a “willingness to lie to the Court” and “disregard […] of justice”.
The damages are tabulated as follows:
Anthony Smith (main defendant)
187.2h á $200.00/h – $409.00/h → $72,367.00
AT&T
158.7h á $110.00/h – $295.00/h → $38,987.83 + $870.29
215.0h á $250.00/h – $555.00/h → $80,524.50 + $864.92
total $119,637.05
Comcast
132.0h á $212.50/h – $531.00/h → $57,144.23 + $806.98
36.9h á $300.00/h → $11,070.00
total $69,021.26
TOTAL JUDGEMENT: $261,025.11
So yes, Prenda would have to pay a lot less attorney fees hadn't they got the ISPs involved, and possibly even none at all, considering that the motion for fees was brought forward by the ISPs.
"Unlike other awards, Hansmeier, Steele and Duffy are __personally liable__ for this award." (emphasis added)
So they can't simply close up the firm and walk away from the carcass. Their own personal funds will disappear, which is actually the proper punishment for this type of action on their part.
12 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 38.1 ms ] threadthe correct answer was ordered to pay the sum equal to the amount they were last awarded in court.
Of course there are similarities between copyright trolls and patent trolls: Both acquire certain rights and try to extort money out of small actors for allegedly infringing use. In both cases the troll's calculation is that the proposed settlement fee is just below the cost of an effective defense.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/21/quite-ama...
If they hadn't sued Comcast and Bell, would the judgment be different?
This order discusses a motion by Comcast and AT&T for attorney fees, which the judge deems appropriate because (a) Prenda unnecessarily elongated the process by naming the ISPs as co-defendants without any valid claim, and (b) as a reprimand for Prenda'a “willingness to lie to the Court” and “disregard […] of justice”.
The damages are tabulated as follows:
So yes, Prenda would have to pay a lot less attorney fees hadn't they got the ISPs involved, and possibly even none at all, considering that the motion for fees was brought forward by the ISPs.You can read the judgement yourself at https://ia600705.us.archive.org/3/items/gov.uscourts.ilsd.58...
"Unlike other awards, Hansmeier, Steele and Duffy are __personally liable__ for this award." (emphasis added)
So they can't simply close up the firm and walk away from the carcass. Their own personal funds will disappear, which is actually the proper punishment for this type of action on their part.