Posted on 12/02/2001 10:09:56 PM PST by Bob J
Nothing...thats what it means.
The afholes have been trying to scare FReepers with this little bit information. Here is my opinion on the subject.
As you all know, the Washington Post and LA Times sued FR LLC and Jim to stop it from posting full text articles. The basis of FR's attorneys defense rested on the fair use clause. Unfortunately, Jim drew probably the worst judge he could...Margaret Morrow, a Clinton nominee, whose appointment was held up for a long time by Republicans due to here obvious left wing opinions.
The plaintiffs attorneys filed a pre trial motion to squelch the fair use defense and Judge Morrow ruled affirmatively. That basically took all the guts out of the Jim's defense. At that point, Jim's most prudent course of action was to stipulate to a decision against him. That way the case could get into the appeal with the least cost. This may have actually worked for the best since if Jim won, the WP was certainly going to appeal. It would also follow that whoever lost the appeal would then appeal to the SC. It has been estimated going directly to appeal may have saved Jim and FR 200-300k. Now, it may only cost 20-30k to get all the way to the Supremes.
Once Jim stipulated, they were allowed to ask for a dollar judgement. When Jim found out it was 1 million, he said "Why not make it 500 million. Hell, make it a billion!" The fact is Jim nor FR LLC have any money. What is raised during the quarterly FReepathons is used during the next 3 months for expenses. The LAT and WP know this. I doubt if they expect to ever see a dime of it. The judgement allows them to put a nice round number on their balance sheet to offset the obvious huge expenses this case is chewing up on their P&L's. Can you imagine the public relations nightmare for a multi billion dollar corporation to going after a disabled vet for a million bucks he doesn't have? How about a billion...heheh.
Obviously, some donations go to legal expenses, as in any business, but Jim is trying to minimize the cost. So, when an afhole throws that million dollar judgement in your face, as if you are or they expect you to pay for it, say what Jim said, "Thank you sir, make it a billion, please!"
Ha! What loosers...
Now.........put on your thinking cap for just a second. Think of the dates involved; the timeframe for the LA Times/Wash Post lawsuit. What was the big buzz in the country? What was THE current "thing"?? (HINT: think "dot com"). OK.......ya with me?
Try to keep up, now.
I know for an absolute fact, in the case of the Washington Post, that their online version (i.e. the folks who ran it) were catching unmitigated HELL over the fact that they were not the "de facto online news source". That was their goal. They wanted everyone to think "Washington Post" when they thought of online news. It's none of your go**amned business how I know, and I don't care a flip if you believe it or not.
They were getting their asses kicked online; ZIP for "visibility", viewership/readership, etc., ..........and clutching at straws for answers or........in lieu of answers............scapegoats.
FR was nothing more than a handy target with shallow pockets. That's a f**king fact, slick. Live it, learn it, know it for the TRUTH that it is.
By suing FR and getting their West Coast loser brethren at the LA Times (yep............facing similar heat) to join in with their checkbooks, they were practically guaranteed "cover" from their bosses.
Do you think for a f**king second I can make this stuff up, genius?
Jim was scapegoated for a simple reason: Unreasonable expectations on the part of the management of those two liberal-run publications. Their online-version managers failed to deliver and needed shields..........FR? Simple. No sweat. Send a message. An "example".
The damnedest thing about this whole fiasco is this (and I DO know what I'm talking about; I spent years consulting in this field): FR not only did no harm to those two idiotic publications; it freakin' helped them..............and they were too go**amned stupid to even know it.
The God's honest truth of it all is this irony: Those assholes should have been cutting Jim checks each month rather than sue him.
Appreciate the reply, buddy. Eagles up.
One more item - I didn't know to which donation effort to click on, so I just clicked on the 'support FR' tab. When I saw that huge lawsuit, I was kinda wishing I'd clicked on the legal fund tab.
They can use it anyway they see fit, IMO.
Bob,
JimRob invited us over. In fact, he specifically invited me to ask questions, which I did in a very polite way. He even answered many of them.
When it comes to dealing with the AFers, do you receive talking points, or just make the stuff up as you go along?
I understand that oral arguments in the appeal have been scheduled for February 11, 2002, 1:30 pm, in Pasadena, Courtroom 1. Can you confirm the accuracy of that report?
Thank you.
tom paine and ben franklin would have been most interested in the answer.
I asked the following question of Bob J and didn't ping you. I'd like to ask the same of you:
I understand that oral arguments in the appeal have been scheduled for February 11, 2002, 1:30 pm, in Pasadena, Courtroom 1. Can you confirm the accuracy of that report?
Thank you in advance for your reply.
I've always been curious as to the lack of information released concerning the lawsuit. Will you be posting a thread regarding the court date, time, etc., for any interested freepers?
As to your point................no, I don't think Jim played into their hands per se'. I think that he pushed back, but ultimately gave them what they wanted. That still wasn't good enough for those guys. No, they wanted an example, as if FR or any other single Web site was responsible for their dismal "hit rates" (I truly wish, in an obtuse way, that this case was really about some loftier concept or ideal..........but it wasn't; THAT is the sad part). Their problems were problems of technology and content, pure and simple. That, in itself, is a lengthy discussion that I would find it prudent NOT to go into on this forum..........but the points stand.
Then for her to hear the case was a conflict of interest.
RICO time?
Something stinks here.
Will you be at the oral arguments before the Ninth? Maybe I'll see ya there!
I'm sure you'll keep us abreast. Right?
As far as keeping y'all posted, I'll do my best!! LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.