
Adam Carolla won’t let Personal Audio drop podcast patent infringement lawsuit - bennesvig
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/08/01/adam_carolla_won_t_let_personal_audio_drop_podcast_patent_infringement_lawsuit.html
======
dicroce
Fuck "Personal Audio".

Go Adam. The world needs more people to stand up to bullshit like this. (sorry
for the language in this post, this sort of stuff infuriates me).

~~~
spacemanmatt
Go, Adam. "We thought you had more money" is a despicable reason to try to
back out of a law suit.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
It should be grounds for classification as a vexatious litigant since it
clearly indicates that they're not serious about following through with a
lawsuit and are just running a shakedown operation.

~~~
pdabbadabba
I don't see why. Lawsuits are expensive, and as a plaintiff, you know you
aren't guaranteed to win. So if you discover that your expected recovery (p of
victory * the lesser of the expected damages or defendants' assets) is less
than the cost of maintaining the suit, why wouldn't you drop it?

Think about the consequences of automatically categorizing such plaintiffs as
"vexatious litigants." You would have a bunch of plaintiffs in court who
didn't want to be there, wasting their own time, the defendant's time, and the
court's time. It seems to me that nobody would benefit from that rule except
lawyers. Though if the lawyer is charging a contingent fee, they don't win
either. (Of course there is a separate question of how far into the case
should a plaintiff be able to drop the suit without forfeiting his right to
bring it again later, but there is already a set of pretty fair and
commonsense rules about this in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and state
procedural rules.
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41](http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41))

Sure, in this case Personal Audio's attempts to drop the suit might (or might
not) be just another symptom of their general sleaziness, but this sort of
maneuver is very common in all litigation, both legitimate and sleazy.

~~~
baddox
I agree. I think the patent system is bonkers, and these trolls are awful, but
in general it seems pretty reasonable to only sue a party for damages when
that party can feasibly pay the damages.

------
bravura
Aren't the details from the discovery process private? Can one party in a
lawsuit use information gleaned during discovery as part of its PR efforts?

From a press release from the patent troll:

"When Personal Audio first began its litigation, it was under the impression
that Carolla, the self-proclaimed largest podcaster in the world, as well as
certain other podcasters, were making significant money from infringing
Personal Audio’s patents. After the parties completed discovery, however, it
became clear this was not the case. As a result, Personal Audio began to offer
dismissals from the case to the podcasting companies involved, rather than to
litigate over the smaller amounts of money at issue."

[http://personalaudio.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Carolla-...](http://personalaudio.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Carolla-DIsmissal_7-29-2014.pdf)

~~~
pravda
No, details from discovery are not private.

But Personal Audio is lying in their press release. They want to drop the case
because Carolla is fighting back.

~~~
jakewalker
Depends on whether or not there is a Confidentiality/Protective Order in
place, and if so, what the terms of such an Order say. Almost every case of
this nature would be subject to some sort of Confidentiality/Protective Order.
Generally, the parties would be able to designate documents, deposition
testimony, etc., as Confidential. Sometimes there are multiple levels of
confidentiality baked into one of these orders (for example, a "HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL" designation might mean that only outside counsel can review a
produced document).

Generally, documents marked as such must be filed under seal, cannot be
disclosed publicly, etc.

~~~
skywhopper
Surely Adam Carolla's representatives can release characterizations of the
amount of money he's making off podcasting with his permission, regardless of
whether or not the details of his podcasting income were subject to discovery
or not. The plaintiff would reasonably not be able to release information it
sought from the defendant, but the defendant can obviously release his own
personal information at will.

------
ecaron
People can donate to his legal defense fund at
[https://fundanything.com/patenttroll?locale=en](https://fundanything.com/patenttroll?locale=en)
\- it has already raised nearly $500k!

~~~
kelukelugames
I feel conflicted. I like Adam but I think he is rich enough to not need my
help.

~~~
Domenic_S
In his Senate video he says the case post-discovery is costing $100k/month.
I'm sure Ace is rich, but 1.2MM/yr to blow on legal fees rich?

~~~
FireBeyond
Net worth of $15-20MM. Plus, there’s the possibility of these guys being
assigned costs.

------
sjtrny
Previous discussion
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8113757](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8113757)

------
arms
Good for Adam. These patent trolls are reprehensible. It's hilarious that they
want to pull out now that they stand a chance of losing.

------
jobu
The publicity Adam Carolla gets from this case is likely worth more than the
legal fees from keeping the case going.

~~~
ugk
Never paid good lawyers, huh? Or just trolling?

~~~
jobu
I was completely serious. How much do you think the media coverage he's gotten
over this would cost if he'd paid for it as an advertisement?

~~~
mbrameld
According to another comment on this story, Adam told the Senate his legal
fees are $100,000 a month. I'm not sure what else he has going on
professionally but I doubt he'll see a big enough rise in podcast subscribers
to offset that.

