Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

popehat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

#11

Post by Natsu »

If you want to know just what a mess they're in, know this: the attorneys for the Prenda attorneys have attorneys.

It's amazing that the guy who claims he had his identity stolen could make it to that courtroom when the Prenda lawyers could not, but it's not like we didn't see this coming. Perhaps some Federal Marshals will arrange for their transport to the next hearing?

Re: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

#13

Post by DanBC »

So, this is copyright trolling, and not patent trolling.

But why is this example of non-practicing entities using law to troll for (copyright) damages seen as terrible by this judge, when non-practicing entities using law to troll for (patent) damages seen as great by other judges?

(Also, the federal thing is confusing to me, but I'm going to web search an answer for that.)

EDIT: Thanks for submitting a Popehat article. It was really good. I like torrentfreak, but this article had more legal "stuff"; a feeling of legal truthiness.

Re: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

#14

Post by jahewson »

DanBC wrote: post #13

So, this is copyright trolling, and not patent trolling. But why is this example of non-practicing entities using law to troll for (copyright) damages seen as terrible by this judge, when non-practicing entities using law to troll for (patent) damages seen as great by other judges? (Also, the federal thing is confusing to me, but I'm going to web search an answer for that.) EDIT: Thanks for submitting a Popehat artic…

Because these guys appear to be crooks, it's doubtful that they own any IP or have any IP-owning clients.

Re: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

#16

Post by ajtaylor »

This write up, and the previous ones on the same site, are better than any TV drama. Mostly because a real-life troll is actually getting what's coming to them. Many thanks for the extensive coverage. I can't wait to see just how hard the judge slaps them in the season finale!

Re: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

#17

Post by monochromatic »

DanBC wrote: post #13

So, this is copyright trolling, and not patent trolling. But why is this example of non-practicing entities using law to troll for (copyright) damages seen as terrible by this judge, when non-practicing entities using law to troll for (patent) damages seen as great by other judges? (Also, the federal thing is confusing to me, but I'm going to web search an answer for that.) EDIT: Thanks for submitting a Popehat artic…

The issue here seems pretty unrelated to whether or not it's a troll plaintiff.

Re: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

#18

Post by danielweber »

jahewson wrote: post #14
DanBC wrote: post #13

So, this is copyright trolling, and not patent trolling. But why is this example of non-practicing entities using law to troll for (copyright) damages seen as terrible by this judge, when non-practicing entities using law to troll for (patent) damages seen as great by other judges? (Also, the federal thing is confusing to me, but I'm going to web search an answer for that.) EDIT: Thanks for submitting a Popehat artic…

Because these guys appear to be crooks, it's doubtful that they own any IP or have any IP-owning clients.

No, it seems they do have the rights to the works. They had the basic right to pursue legal action against infringers.

But they, allegedly, did all sorts of fraud and identity theft along the way, and kept digging the hole deeper when people started sniffing around.

It's the cover-up, not the crime.

Re: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

#19

Post by paranormal »

There's a comment by a Brad Hicks halfway down on that article about how ridiculous it was that Judge Wright allowed surprise testimony from the audience. It's even stranger that it was an attorney, who would be acutely aware of the normal consequences of something like this, who ventured to do so!

The comment goes on to say

> (The next place my mind went was, "well, if Prenda wants to establish grounds for appeal, if they need more evidence that the judge is prejudiced against them, didn't they just find the smoking gun?" I mean, if someone with only a peripheral involvement in the case had jumped up in the audience and called The Real Alan Cooper a liar, would the judge have tolerated that?)

but has received no response on Popehat so far. As a layman, I'm wondering the same thing.

Re: Brett Gibbs Gets His Day In Court — But Prenda Law Is The Star

#20

Post by Mvandenbergh »

DanBC wrote: post #13

So, this is copyright trolling, and not patent trolling. But why is this example of non-practicing entities using law to troll for (copyright) damages seen as terrible by this judge, when non-practicing entities using law to troll for (patent) damages seen as great by other judges? (Also, the federal thing is confusing to me, but I'm going to web search an answer for that.) EDIT: Thanks for submitting a Popehat artic…

In cases like this, law firms are supposed to be independent of the rights owner. That's why they went through all these gymnastics to hide the fact that they'd bought the IP and were basically representing themselves.
Post reply on HN