Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 28th Nov 2010 23:22 UTC
Legal We've had a bit of a copyrightesque weekend here on OSNews, so it seems only fitting to end this Sunday with yet another story on this subject. This one isn't so much anger-inducing as much as it is what?-inducing - you'll either laugh or cry. It basically comes down to this: a smart lawyer is selling self-help packages to aid victims of the mass-P2P lawsuits in the US, and now the media companies behind those lawsuits are suing this lawyer... For causing them damage.
Thread beginning with comment 451575
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I agree. Our lawyer friend has been treated somewhat unfairly by the community here. I prefer to reserve judgement until I have some facts.

(Although, having the name 'Rob Cashman' is somewhat unfortunate in this situation.)

Doing some of my own research reveals this:

which indicates that a lack of personal jurisdiction is a valid complaint during this process.

Reply Parent Score: 3 Member since:

I agree. In the end, the personal jurisdiction argument will likely win the day. Bottom line, if you're sued in TX but you live in NY, the TX court has no jurisdiction over you (unless you're in the state or you have the minimum contacts [e.g., doing business in the state] that it would be fair that you'd be sued there.)

The issue in these copyright infringement cases (and I've gone into this at length on my blawg is that the DGW attorneys sued thousands of internet downloaders... but they didn't name anyone! Instead, they've been dragging their feet "doing discovery," and the court has told them to get their act together by 12/6/2010 (a day I am very excited to have on my calendar) and name names or let people off the hook... and my understanding is that the issue is... PERSONAL JURISDICTION! Yay Law School 101 civil procedure class. You 1L law students should get a real kick out of these cases.

PS - BTW, Mr. Syfert and my law firm (Cashman Law Firm) are not rivaling law firms -- we're actually in contact with each other and have different business models on how to attack this problem. I went the traditional route [giving deep discounts since I do the same thing over and over for each client], and Graham sold forms with which he expects to achieve the same results. While I differ in the preferred method (which I've made clear my opinions in previous posts), I support Graham in his end goal and have offered my help with DGW's motions for sanctions because DGW is singling him out to make an example of him and that is simply not okay.

Reply Parent Score: 1

rexstuff Member since:

Ok, so just so we're clear here, you are saying that Motions to Quash do NOT work, but motions to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction have been successful? I think we're in agreement on this.

However. Mr Syfert's form package includes both a Motion to Quash (which seems to be useless) and a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (which seems somewhat effective). Yet in your original post you claim that Mr Syfert's forms are not effective.

Can I get a clear answer from you: in your opinion, while Mr Syfert's form to move to quash is useless, is the motion to dismiss form worthwhile?

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

(BTW thank your for your patience and helpful attitude thus far)

Reply Parent Score: 2