an example of an aggressive defense against RIAA claims

[Craig White]

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 06:22 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > It's possible given that this case was
> > dropped and then refiled by RIAA that RIAA will drop it and possibly
> > have to cover the legal costs of Weed...that has happened several  
> > times
> > so far and my reading of this is that is entirely possible here.
> 
> Look at paragraph 19 on page 11. It says that the case was dismissed  
> in September of 2006. But Weed did not have council and didn't know  
> enough to object when the RIAA sought to have the case reinstated.
> 
> I agree that the RIAA will probably  drop this case. I think they will  
> drop Howell unless they have some evidence that he did erase files  
> though the fact that he admits to exchanging pornography may encourage  
> them.
----
not a chance that they will drop Howell. First, they have already won
the case and all that's really left at this point is the final score.

Secondly, they can't bring a legal action against someone appearing pro
se and then drop it because their bread and butter is clearly the threat
of legal action against people who decide that settling costs less than
hiring a lawyer. If they drop the case at this point, they will then be
ordered to pay costs for Howell which would send entirely the wrong
message to everyone.
----
> 
> After stupidly bringing some cases against some very sympathetic  
> defendants the RIAA has learned their lesson. They now seem to  be  
> trolling for defendants who they  can portray in a  very bad light. In  
> this regard, paragraphs 62, 63 and 64 on page 17 are interesting.
> 
> It's clear that Jammie Thomas doesn't have $222,000 and from a  
> financial perspective the suit  against her was probably a looser. The  
> RIAA doesn't care. They succeeded in portraying  her as a bad person  
> and themselves as the victim.
----
IP litigation is unlike any other. The plaintiffs clearly have a
strategy which first and foremost has them deliberately picking which
cases to litigate simply because the local rules, their estimation of
opposing counsel and trial judge all with a single focus...to help
define the case law, create precedent for future cases. They never cared
that Thomas had money and knew that they would never see any award. They
gambled that the defense would put up a less than stellar performance,
the jury could be persuaded and the judge would give them a case which
had renderings that they could adopt elsewhere.

They don't pick their litigation cases by accident. They start a bunch
of litigation to weigh the aspects of them before determining whether to
proceed which is why they have been ordered to pay costs for several
cases that they abandoned.

I promise you that I witnessed first hand the strategizing for a maximum
return of licensing/litigation for an extremely large patent portfolio.

The public relations aspect is clearly of lesser concern...look at
Thomas, a single mother. On a scale of public relations nightmares,
picking on old ladies, young children, young mothers with children are
the next least desirable from a public relations point of view. But
obviously the case climate is what they saw as favorable and so they
proceeded.

The RIAA has learned no lessons and is clearly not sympathetic to
whomever they are bringing charges against. They are still bringing
action against orphans and widows and nothing has stopped there.

Craig