Featured Articles

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel has released a 3G cellular modem with an integrated power amplifier that fits into a 300 mm2 footprint, claiming it…

More...
Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

It's not all rosy in the house of Intel. It seems that upcoming Atom out-of-order cores might be giving this semiconductor…

More...
TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC will start producing 16nm wafers in the first quarter of 2015. Sometime in the second quarter production should ramp up…

More...
Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S is the ‘tock’ of the Haswell architecture and despite being delayed from the original plan, this desktop part is scheduled…

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 03 November 2011 16:08

Copyright troll shut down

Written by Nick Farell

y banned

A small violin for Righthaven please

 The US Marshal for the District of Nevada has just been told by federal court to use "reasonable force" to seize $63,720.80 from the Las Vegas copyright troll Righthaven.

It seems that Righthaven, which made a national name for itself by suing mostly small-time bloggers and forum posters over newspaper articles, failed to pay a court judgement from August 15.

While the campaign of legal threats started off well with some of those sued paying up, it all went pear shaped in August.

In that case, Righthaven v. Hoehn a federal judge in Nevada declared that defendant Wayne Hoehn's complete copy of a newspaper article in a sub-forum on the site "Madjack Sports" was fair use.

He awarded $34,045.50 to the Randazza Legal Group, which represented Hoehn and Righthaven, didn't pay.

Instead it filed appeals which claimed that having to pay the money would involve "the very real threat of being forced out of business or being forced to seek protection through bankruptcy.

It insisted it could win the case on appeal and thus should not be bankrupted before it had the chance to make its case. However it couldn't get its appellate filings in on time.

More here
 

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments