This post was enthralling, but could have used some context. Here's a quick background I've picked up from a brief read-through of Ars Technica's extensive coverage [1]:
- Prenda Law is a law firm that filed many lawsuits against individuals related to porn copyright, asking for lots of $$$ to drop the suit. Prenda's lawyers include John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy
- On the other side of the suit is Morgan Pietz (a lawyer representing a John Doe), as well as Alan Cooper. Cooper filed a suit against Prenda for using his identity (signatures, address, etc), claiming that in reality he had nothing to do with the company. Cooper's lawyer is Paul Godfread (who is mentioned a couple times in the article)
- Brett Gibbs, whom this case has mostly been about, worked with Prenda Law, though it sounds like he may have been in over his head or had actions attributed to him which were actually the result of Steele/Hansmeier/Duffy's work.
Do let me know if I've misinterpreted anything/missed any base details.
I think there may be one other relevant detail. This detail explains why this company could be in a fair bit more trouble that other similar enterprises (such as Righthaven):
It appears that Steele, Hansmeier and other principals at Prenda Law set up the entities that held the copyrights that Prenda Law filed suit on behalf of. Various federal and local rules have stipulated that (in certain cases like these) the Plaintiff must be represented by independent counsel. It appears to some that the entities that they have set up are actually under the control of Prenda Law, and thus violates the independent counsel rules. This may constitute a fraud that was perpetrated on the court, which would be very bad for Prenda Law.
Quick legal disclaimer: The above paragraphs are a statement of my opinion that I've drawn based on reading the Ars Technica series, the Popehat series, and the various court filings in the case (12-cv-08333). This disclaimer is probably not necessary but Prenda law has filed several defamation suits that include anonymous John Does commenting on the case(s): http://phillylawblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/prenda-law-joh...
And there's definitely a lot of great reading material there. This earlier piece has a great exposition, though it is on the long side: http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/06/what-prenda-law-is-facing-.... I do recommend reading it—it is just as engrossing as the OP. What I couldn't find was a 2 minute summary that could let me understand who the main characters are in this case. Hopefully we'll have a Wikipedia page for this case up soon.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
Judges have quite a lot of power and independence when it comes to investigating misconduct in their own court-rooms that they don't have in normal cases.
- Prenda Law is a law firm that filed many lawsuits against individuals related to porn copyright, asking for lots of $$$ to drop the suit. Prenda's lawyers include John Steele, Paul Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy
- On the other side of the suit is Morgan Pietz (a lawyer representing a John Doe), as well as Alan Cooper. Cooper filed a suit against Prenda for using his identity (signatures, address, etc), claiming that in reality he had nothing to do with the company. Cooper's lawyer is Paul Godfread (who is mentioned a couple times in the article)
- Brett Gibbs, whom this case has mostly been about, worked with Prenda Law, though it sounds like he may have been in over his head or had actions attributed to him which were actually the result of Steele/Hansmeier/Duffy's work.
Do let me know if I've misinterpreted anything/missed any base details.
http://arstechnica.com/series/whos-behind-prenda-law/