I agree, and I kind of have a problem with it. Regardless of my thoughts about this case and others like it, the judge is supposed to be objective; he sure sounds like he's already biased against the plaintiff.
It doesn't sound like that to me. He sounds like he's against the plaintiff on that issue, for sure, but that doesn't mean he lacked objectivity. Being objective or unbiased means that you aren't influenced by external factors, so your decision is based only on the relevant facts. It doesn't mean you don't ultimately take one side or the other.
As I understand it, a judge can make a preliminary decision that a case, or elements of a case, are without merit, before hearing the complete arguments of the plaintiff.
Yes. A judge is making ... judgments ... all through the case. Every time that cliche lawyer jumps up and cries "objection", the judge has to make a decision, and take a side.
I think at some point we have to say "enough is enough" and stop letting people game the system as a business model. The legal system is there for people to seek actual reparation for actual damages incurred. I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis but clearly Righthaven haven't even gone through with due process by first sending cease-and-desist letters as noted by the judge. They're just passing Go and attempting to collect $200.
That's not what due process means. There's no law that says they have to give the defendant notice and opportunity to stop infringing before filing suit.
If the system needs reform, then reform the system. But a judge shouldn't be prematurely taking sides against a litigant who's playing by the rules as they currently exist.
There's no law that says they have to give the defendant notice and opportunity to stop infringing before filing suit.
Not technically, but as the article says, if the plaintiff takes no steps to mitigate the damages he's supposedly suffering, but goes straight for the defendant's wallet without asking for so much as a preliminary injunction, it's reasonable to suspect his motives.
And that may affect what he eventually receives in damages. But the judge taking sides against him based on doing something that he's within his rights to do is inappropriate.
