Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)

[Useful_Mistake]

Maybe one of them is going to come down with a bad case of the chicken pox.

That magically turns into the Black Plague, but only for a week.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Let's hope for a repeat of the last go around and they just forget to file again. That would be nice.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

Doc for those curious. He wants time until the 17th

I like how under "prior extensions" they say "no prior extensions for the forthcoming petition" as if they've never asked for more time. They know the judges would be unimpressed if they listed every continuance up to now for a honeymoon and covid and being out in the boonies at midnight

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I like how under "prior extensions" they say "no prior extensions for the forthcoming petition" as if they've never asked for more time.

They are correct. They’ve never asked for more time to respond to Null’s motion for a rehearing. Now, technically that part might be in violation of local rule Rule 27.6 (C) (3), which by my read would require them to list every motion for extension they filed in this appeal, but that’s a moot point given the Judges granted this motion.

 

[mindlessobserver]

It's also a bit of a dick move to quibble about 1 week extensions anyway. You never know if you might end up needing one down the road.

 

[AnOminous]

New article came out praising the 10th circuit decision, saying it "Contributes Clarity" to US copyright law.

Does fucking WHAT?

Maybe one of them is going to come down with a bad case of the chicken pox.

These buffoons strike me as more the monkeypox sort.

 

[jerkstore]

You could have saved yourself those cents and just clicked on the doc I attached in response to Null.

Well, you don't want the court to miss that part. In all their other motions for extension they did the same or similar.

"We're busy and there's time sensitive thing tomorrow" is not really unreasonable (for the district level at the very least). Personally, I think (especially given all their prior extensions) that this shouldn't fly on the appellate level, but there's not exactly any problems for Null and the Court, so who cares.

i missed that post, stupidly, but they can have my cents providing such a valuable service.

and, certainly you don’t want the court to miss it, but… i feel like the court can… yanno, read a title.

yeah, there’s no problems, but i was thinking the same thing re: all of their previous requests for extensions. i wouldn’t have thought anything about it considering their reasons this time if they hadn’t gotten by on so many (to me) frivolous extensions previously.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The issue now is we are in uncharted territory. I actually made a joke when when Greer got these corporate scalpers to do his case for free that we should put our bow ties on because this shit is going to the Supreme Court baby!

Not that funny now though. This filing greers lawyers have to do in response to Hardine is literally one appeal away from the USSC, and Hardine name dropped Gorsich repeatedly in his brief, which is basically the gauntlet on the table this will go all the way. While the odds of that still remain low, they are no longer so low as to not make you sweat as you stare at your cards.

When your job is literally to make copyright EASIER for copyright holders, the last thing you want is to be on the ass end of a precedential ruling making it harder to pursue copyright claims.

I think if they thought they could put this off for a month they would have done that instead.

 

[Marvin]

just imagine ralph showing up demanding you give him the money or else he is gonna start taking your stuff. i feel like it would be like those tv shows about tow truck drivers and repo companies in the middle of some nowhere town. just with more rage pig moments

He's exactly the type of white trash for such a job. Zero shame. Willing to take it on the chin for a questionable payoff.

I appreciate the hustle.

The issue now is we are in uncharted territory. I actually made a joke when when Greer got these corporate scalpers to do his case for free that we should put our bow ties on because this shit is going to the Supreme Court baby!

Not that funny now though. This filing greers lawyers have to do in response to Hardine is literally one appeal away from the USSC, and Hardine name dropped Gorsich repeatedly in his brief, which is basically the gauntlet on the table this will go all the way. While the odds of that still remain low, they are no longer so low as to not make you sweat as you stare at your cards.

When your job is literally to make copyright EASIER for copyright holders, the last thing you want is to be on the ass end of a precedential ruling making it harder to pursue copyright claims.

I think if they thought they could put this off for a month they would have done that instead.

If the question is still "links are copyright infringement" then I suspect the the supreme court won't bother. But admittedly I haven't been paying enough attention. Has it gone beyond that?

 

[mindlessobserver]

If the question is still "links are copyright infringement" then I suspect the the supreme court won't bother. But admittedly I haven't been paying enough attention. Has it gone beyond that?

The Supreme Court will be way more interested in the procedural issue then the copyright issue. That one is the true doozy. If the current ruling stands in thr 10th circuit you are going to have to make an affirmative defense along with also pointing out no claims have been made which require a defense at all.

That's big problem jimbo. Gonna take a big wrench to fix.

 

[Pee Cola]

Greer's counsel wanted extra time and I didn't oppose it. I'm a nice guy.

They pulled this shit again? I'm calling it now: one member of Russhole's counsel will magically come down with the coof on Friday morning, and ask for another extension as a result.

It's also a bit of a dick move to quibble about 1 week extensions anyway. You never know if you might end up needing one down the road.

Or in the case of Russhole's counsel, at least four.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

If the question is still "links are copyright infringement"

Null is not accused of copyright infringement, he is accused of contributory copyright infringement. 10th circuit particularly determined that Null owns Google and has discovered time travel, and therefore and thereby is liable.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

Null is not accused of copyright infringement, he is accused of contributory copyright infringement. 10th circuit particularly determined that Null owns Google and has discovered time travel, and therefore and thereby is liable.

This is 2007-present.

The 10th circuit isn’t the 9th, but in general it seems like the appeals courts are a joke

 

[mindlessobserver]

Really puts into perspective why they call it the Ninth Circus

 

[im5!XxhO]

That one is the true doozy. If the current ruling stands in thr 10th circuit you are going to have to make an affirmative defense along with also pointing out no claims have been made which require a defense at all.

Could they "fix" that issue and it would still get reversed and go back to the district court? Or is Null safe if they reverse on that one

 

[mindlessobserver]

Anything is possible I suppose, but there is quite alot to fix, not just the procedural issues. Those are just the most glaring problem.

The short answer though is yes. They could throw out the original ruling entirely and then write a new one that fucks over Null anyway.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Could they "fix" that issue and it would still get reversed and go back to the district court? Or is Null safe if they reverse on that one

Null is only guaranteed safe if they rule by a majority to accept his motion, but split 50-50 on what the new result should be. See:

Interestingly (in a section titled 'If Rehearing En Banc Granted'), "If the court should be equally divided on en banc rehearing, the judgment of the district court (not the judgment of the initial panel) will be affirmed."

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/documents/downloads/2023PracGuideUpdate-13thEdition.pdf
So, in a sense, Null needs 51% of the 10th circuit judges to grant the motion for en banc, and then, at minumum, he needs 50-50 split to win (remember, the district ruling was good for Null)

 

[AnOminous]

When your job is literally to make copyright EASIER for copyright holders, the last thing you want is to be on the ass end of a precedential ruling making it harder to pursue copyright claims.

No shit. If they blow this because they decided to anti bono for a retard, the very people these dickheads are sucking up to are going to hate their guts. And it will be in an attention getting and rare en banc reversal.

Yeah,

 

[Useful_Mistake]

https://archive.is/jU92a

Let’s hope the 10th circuit doesn’t stalk his twitter

 

[Your Starter for 10]

View attachment 5496902

https://archive.is/jU92a

Let’s hope the 10th circuit doesn’t stalk his twitter

Why, he pointedly left out novels.