Not gonna speak for Null, but I watched the oral arguments and thought Skordas did a lousy, half-assed job. I'm guessing he's fed up with having to deal with the greasy gimp-faced perv. 5 grand will only get you so far.
It just means you're a normal person who doesn't delve into legal autism. Well, you're on Kiwifarms, so "normal" is relative.
Either SCOTUS, or give up on appeals and try and salvage it on the District level. The district judge did seem convinced the law was on our side.
Seriously if we don't get review on this, copyright trolls are going to start fishing for any reason to take something to the Tenth Circuit. I hate to say it, but even the Ninth Circuit which incessantly slobbers Hollywood's balls will be a better place for a defendant until this embarrassing mess gets fixed.
They're stuck with him throughout the appeals.
That's actually a good development and I think raises the chances of an actual rehearing significantly. Of course, considering the usual percentage is 3%, curb your enthusiasm until it happens.
They could only withdraw for cause at this point, since Greer has relied on them to get to this point. Pro bono or not, they can't just cause him to have a reasonable expectation of continued representation at the appellate level and then just leave him in the lurch.
Or devil's advocate it could be a gene issue & gets sick often due to genetics I will him a slight break.
The time between filing and response was 17 hours, which I'm told is extremely rare. My gut feeling (as a total retard) is they anticipated the en banc review and had already decided they made a mistake.
It's not a fair use case, even though the court gratuitously turned normal pleading requirements on their head to claim the defense had been somehow waived before an answer had even been filed. It's not entirely egregious that even a federal appeals court might get the arcana of various types of vicarious infringement wrong, but absolutely getting waiver wrong is just incompetent if not outright malicious, which seems to be the case considering the court's also gratuitous insertion of nonsensical and scandalous claims not even in evidence in their opinion.
It didn't help that the context of these two blunders is an opinion full of the sort of baseless invective against a party that you usually see in pro se pleadings from lunatics and imbeciles.
there was this article that some law professor wrote about the case where he says "yeah kiwifarms bad, but this decision goes against 20 years of copyright law, shit's wild yo"
