And it was no ordinary filing U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt was demanding.
Nevada?s chief judge two weeks ago ordered Righthaven, which sues bloggers and websites for infringement of Las Vegas Review-Journal articles, to explain why the litigation factory made ?dishonest statements to the court.? Hunt wanted the answer by June 28, but Righthaven?s Las Vegas lawyer filed a reply a day late.
The reason it was untimely, Righthaven attorney Shawn Mangano said, was because an ?automatic software update for the internet browser? on his computer caused the browser to stop working with the federal judiciary?s electronic filing system, known in legal circles as CM/ECF.
?This automatic software update caused my internet browser to be incompatible with the court?s CM/ECF electronic filing system. While the CM/ECF system was accessible to me, it did not permit any files to be attached (.pdf) for submission,? Mangano wrote the judge.
The judiciary?s filing service is generally compatible with the major browsers, including Internet Explorer, Safari, Firefox and Chrome. Mangano did not respond for comment.
Mangano?s filing was in response to a June 14 order in which Hunt called Righthaven?s litigation effort ?disingenuous, if not outright deceitful.? (.pdf)
Hunt demanded Righthaven explain why Hunt should not sanction it for trying to ?manufacture standing.? Standing is a legal concept that has enabled Righthaven to bring 200-plus lawsuits for infringing the copyrights of Stephens Media, which owns the Review-Journal.
Hunt wanted Righthaven to explain why it failed to disclose, under a rule of civil procedure, that Las Vegas firm Stephens Media had a ?pecuniary interest? (.pdf) in the outcome of Righthaven cases.
An internal accord between Righthaven and Stephens Media granted the Review-Journal?s owner and Righthaven each a 50 percent stake in any settlements or verdicts.
What?s more, Righthaven said in its lawsuits that it owned the copyrights it was suing over. But the internal memo disclosed in the case showed that Stephens Media retains ?an exclusive license to exploit the Stephens Media assigned copyrights for any lawful purpose whatsoever and Righthaven shall have no right or license to exploit or participate in the receipt of royalties from the exploitation of the Stephens Media assigned copyrights other than the right to proceeds in association with a recovery.?
With that, Judge Hunt dismissed Righthaven?s suit against the Democratic Underground blog because, he ruled, ?a copyright owner cannot assign a bare right to sue.?
Several other cases have been dismissed for the same reason, and many more are likely.
Mangano told Judge Hunt he didn?t think it was necessary to disclose the financial link contained in the Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media, which invested $500,000 in Righthaven.
?I reasonably viewed any contingent payment to Stephens Media under the SAA as constituting an indirect interest that required a two-step payment process assuming any case resulted in a recovery. Simply put, receipt of settlement funds through settlement or recovery by the enforcement of a judgment would be made to Righthaven,? he wrote. ?Righthaven would then be contractually obligated under the SAA to subsequently�pay Stephens Media any recovered sums over and above costs incurred.?
Mangano said he has started ?taking corrective action? and has filed ?amended disclosures? in 80 pending cases in Nevada and 34 in Colorado.
Photo: FindYourSearch/Flickr
See Also:
- Bloggers Mull Legal Action Against Righthaven
- Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article Is Fair Use
- Denver Judge Taps Brakes on Righthaven Copyright Lawsuits
- Nevada Judge Threatens Sanctions for Copyright Troll
- Newspaper Chain?s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits
- EFF Decries ?Sham? Copyright-Troll Legal Tactics
Follow @dmkravets on Twitter.
Source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/righthaven_browser/
No comments:
Post a Comment