Righthaven Tries New Strategy: Maybe If It Just Ignores Marc Randazza, He'll Go Away

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Thu, Dec 22nd 2011 6:55am — Mike Masnick

It appears that Righthaven's new legal strategy, after getting beaten down left and right by Marc Randazza, is to just stop responding to him or the court. Think of it as the "play dead" strategy. You may recall that last week, in the Hoehn case, Righthaven was ordered to turn over its own intellectual property to a receivership to settle the attorneys' fees owed to Randazza. While waiting for that to happen, there was a hearing (on Friday) in another case involving Righthaven and Randazza... and Righthaven's lawyer, Shawn Mangano, simply did not appear. On top of that, he has refused to respond to any contact from Randazza and the other lawyers in his firm:

Attorney Mangano has not replied to any of my faxed correspondence -- a manner of communication he had previously requested I use in lieu of e-mail and telephone communication -- since this Court's December 12 Order granting the receivership order.

Basically, it looks like Righthaven is trying out a different sort of response to the various cases involving Randazza: it's just ignoring them entirely. I can't see how that ends well.

In response, Randazza is now looking to go after Righthaven CEO Steve Gibson and his wife Raisha Y. Gibson, a/k/a "Drizzle." At this point, you have to get the feeling that the Righthaven crew has simply been so pummeled by Randazza that it's in a bit of shock. I wonder if Steve Gibson is still claiming that the courts know that Righthaven is "genuine" and is merely providing "guidance" to Righthaven competitors...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: drizzle, marc randazza, raisha gibson, receivership, steve gibson
Companies: righthaven

74 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:01am

How can Randazza on the one hand argue that Righthaven doesn't own the copyrights and therefore doesn't have standing, but then on the other hand argue that Righthaven owns the copyrights and must turn them over? Seems like the latter argument is estopped by the first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:13am
  
  Re:
  How can Randazza on the one hand argue that Righthaven doesn't own the copyrights and therefore doesn't have standing, but then on the other hand argue that Righthaven owns the copyrights and must turn them over?
  
  My understanding, which may be wrong, is that Righthaven has continued to file suits in various jurisdictions based on the position that they do own the copyrights�no matter what any stupid judge says.
  
  If that's the case, Randazza's basis for asking for the copyrights may need to be a little bit more explicitly spelled out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Frankz (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:17am
  
  Re:
  Randazza isn't arguing that.
  The court ordered it.
  Since they weren't paying any of the court ordered judgements already outstanding against them, the court ordered them to turn over any and all assets, including any IP, to receivership, to satisfy the outstanding judgements.
  Randazza just following along with the continuing court cases, and trying to get the money the court already said it's owed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    The "court" being the same Judge Pro that held that Righthaven didn't own the copyright, right? How can a copyright they don't own be part of "any and all assets" that are to be turned over? I'm sure there's an explanation, but I'm just not seeing it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm sure there's an explanation, but I'm just not seeing it.
      
      If Righthaven was continuing to file suit in other jurisdictions, then surely Righthavens' sattorneys had a good-faith basis for those lawsuits. Yes?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - WDS (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The copyrights involved in the suits are not the only IP involved. Righthaven also supposedly has some amazing software that allows it to find infringing work for it to then sue over.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Righthaven may not have copyrights pertinent to the case but may actually own some IP. The court is ordering Righthaven to hand over all they have to pay the defense award. Note in the link Mike made to his earlier post Mike made sorta the same point, questioning what IP they had.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_ioe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How can Randazza on the one hand argue
      
      The "court" being the same Judge Pro that held that Righthaven didn't own the copyright, right?
      
      Since you seem to be a tad slow and cant decide who is at fault to dare list IP as a Righthaven asset. The judge ordered all assets, and if by chance they have any valid IP that is included. And not just IP related to this case, ALL IP. Its safe to reason that Righthaven went and made (or attempted to) some other deals having learned from their mistakes (which would explain them hiding, sitting on the small pile of IP they have acquired that hasnt been invalidated).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Atkray (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        +1 for the account.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry. Didn't read your post. I actually feel sorry for you that you feel the need to imitate me. What a sad little fuck you must be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How can Randazza on the one hand argue
        
        The "court" being the same Judge Pro that held that Righthaven didn't own the copyright, right?
        
        Since you seem to be a tad slow and cant decide who is at fault to dare list IP as a Righthaven asset. The judge ordered all assets, and if by chance they have any valid IP that is included. And not just IP related to this case, ALL IP. Its safe to reason that Righthaven went and made (or attempted to) some other deals having learned from their mistakes (which would explain them hiding, sitting on the small pile of IP they have acquired that hasnt been invalidated).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's all just speculation and doesn't actually answer the question. Do you know exactly which IP Righthaven has and/or is supposed to hand over? That's what I'm wondering about. Thanks for calling me "slow" and then not shedding any light whatsoever on the issue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_ioe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you know exactly which IP Righthaven has and/or is supposed to hand over?
        
        Yes, exactly All of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
        
        I am sure the company trademarked Righthaven, even if that ends up being the extent of the IP they own.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How can Randazza on the one hand argue
        
        The "court" being the same Judge Pro that held that Righthaven didn't own the copyright, right?
        
        Since you seem to be a tad slow and cant decide who is at fault to dare list IP as a Righthaven asset. The judge ordered all assets, and if by chance they have any valid IP that is included. And not just IP related to this case, ALL IP. Its safe to reason that Righthaven went and made (or attempted to) some other deals having learned from their mistakes (which would explain them hiding, sitting on the small pile of IP they have acquired that hasnt been invalidated).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The order probably doesn't specify IP, is specifies assets. That would include IP if there is any.
      
      The other day it was impugned that you are a student of the law. If you are doing well in your classes with such tortured logic, I fear for the quality of both your school, and the future of the legal profession.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The order probably doesn't specify IP, is specifies assets. That would include IP if there is any.
        
        The other day it was impugned that you are a student of the law. If you are doing well in your classes with such tortured logic, I fear for the quality of both your school, and the future of the legal profession.
        
        There's no need to an asshole. I was under the impression that the very copyrights that the courts have said don't belong to Righthaven are the ones being seized because they belong to Righthaven.
        
        What other copyrights does Righthaven own (or purportedly own)? Answer me that, smarty pants. Sheesh, you guys are dicks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I get that you're not being a dick here and just asking for clarification. However, your reputation as a dick colors the way people see you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am a dick too, no doubt, but it's only after all these people start ganging up and are dicks to me. You can see for yourself what dicks they are right here in this thread. These guys really can't stand anyone who believes anything different than they do. It's amazing that I threaten them so. I mean, look at this sad and pathetic twerp who is impersonating me. I actually feel sorry for him. Not everyone can be a winner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah the classic "its not my fault, its everyone else fault" line of reasoning.
        
        and actually someone who wants to be a lawyer, the most useless parasites besides bankers and politicians on this planet, calls other people loser... you are a sad excuse for a sentient being
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You want a real change in attitude? You'll have to show them kindness even when they act like dicks. It's hard to be a dick to someone who is being ridiculously nice, even when they disagree.
        
        Not impossible. I enjoy doing it from time to time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You want a real change in attitude? You'll have to show them kindness even when they act like dicks. It's hard to be a dick to someone who is being ridiculously nice, even when they disagree.
        
        Not impossible. I enjoy doing it from time to time.
        
        You, of course, are absolutely right that that sort of reaction is better that being a dick back. Most days I do strive to be more congenial and diplomatic, but sometimes I just say whatever comes to mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By your logic, the only assets they have are copyrights. That is simply not true. Check your legal dictionary for the definition of assets. Learn to read a balance sheet.
        
        That is what I called tortured.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Huh? I never said that Righthaven has no assets other than copyrights. I don't know (or care) what other assets they have. I'm simply wondering out loud if the very copyrights that Righthaven sued over are expected to be turned over to Randazza. Sorry if that's not clear.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, you wondered aloud how Randazza could dare ask for IP to be turned over that he previously argued they did not possess.
        
        Then you were corrected.
        
        Then you wondered aloud how the Judge could do the same.
        
        Then you were corrected.
        
        Now you mold that all up into, "wondering if the copyrights that are being sued over are expected to be turned over" and somehow cant muster all your legal knowledge to come up with "If they actually own them, then yes".
        
        You are indeed a dick, but not because you raise any valid questions or answers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL! Good grief. So do you know which copyrights they're expected to turn over vs. which ones they're planning to turn over? That would be cool to know. That's all I've been trying to understand. But you sure did your sleuthing here. Kudos on your awesomeness.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So your speculation is 'will they turn over all assets as ordered by the court, or will they try to defy the court.' That's the ONLY WAY you could EVER think exactly what you typed, because not turning over EVERYTHING would be in defiance of the court's orders. This is why we impugn you. You try to weasel and squirm out of everything, and you accuse Mike of dishonesty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tell you what, I'll explain my thinking.
        
        "No, you wondered aloud how Randazza could dare ask for IP to be turned over that he previously argued they did not possess."
        
        Yes, I was anticipating that Randazza would want to seize the very copyrights that he had previously argued Righthaven did not possess. Is he not doing that? I dunno.
        
        "Then you wondered aloud how the Judge could do the same."
        
        Yes, I was wondering if Judge Pro is ordering Righthaven to turn over the very copyright that Judge Pro said they didn't own. Is he doing that? I dunno.
        
        "Now you mold that all up into, "wondering if the copyrights that are being sued over are expected to be turned over" and somehow cant muster all your legal knowledge to come up with "If they actually own them, then yes"."
        
        And that's the question. Do they own them? Are they going to turn them over? Are they expected to turn them over? I don't know, but I think it's kind of fun to think about, so I posted it here. Big fucking deal.
        
        "You are indeed a dick, but not because you raise any valid questions or answers."
        
        I'm being a dick because guys like you are busting my chops over nothing. Grow up and give me a fucking break. I actually feel sorry for you that you're so desperate to get me. What a sad and pathetic person you must be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Tell you what, I'll explain my thinking."
        
        not going to read, there lies madness. might be contagious...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And being a dick makes you a better lawyer? How about you let us know IF you pass the bar, and where. We will make sure your marketplace has a look at your profile here. What do you think your potential clients will make of that?
        
        On the other hand, where being a dick and being a lawyer are not mutually exclusive, there are some law firms that seem to want more dicks (sex of applicant regardless). You just might just get away with this.
        
        Think about it. Is that really the reputation you want? "I'm not only a lawyer, but the biggest dick in town?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      they own copyrights to their logos and such
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK, that's an answer. Thanks. But can you confirm or deny that the very copyrights that the courts said Righthaven doesn't own are also the copyrights being seized? That's all I'm asking about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it's clearly the imaginary IPs that Stephens Media tried and failed to pretend to transmogrify into Righthaven's imaginary IP protocols of unicorns and kittens and baby soul sunshine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Machin Shin, 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The explanation is actually really simple. The court case ended with them saying Righthaven had no business suing in the first place. Righthaven did in fact own some copyrights and such. The case was not over Righthaven owning them but instead over if Randazza infringed on the copyrights.
      
      So now that all that is done the court has ordered Righthaven to hand over these copyrights to pay for the court costs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:14am
  
  Re:
  How can Randazza on the one hand argue that Righthaven doesn't own the copyrights and therefore doesn't have standing, but then on the other hand argue that Righthaven owns the copyrights and must turn them over? Seems like the latter argument is estopped by the first.
  
  Intellectual property includes much more than just the copyrighted material in question. In addition to any other copyrighted material they may own it also includes trademarks and patents, among other things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, I understand that IP is more than copyrights. Does Righthaven own any patents or trademarks? I dunno. I can't imagine they patented anything, but I don't really know. Again though, none of this answers the question about exactly which IP Righthaven is supposed to turn over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - WDS (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As I pointed out above. Righthaven supposedly has some software that they developed or paid to have developed that they own the IP to. They specifically mentioned it in one of their replies explaining what a hardship it would put on them if it were seized.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Any that they own.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - athe, 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think that this is the part that is confusing him...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Groove Tiger (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 6:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, but do they own any of the IP that they own? Or do they not own the IP that they do own?
        
        Is there any IP that they own that they do not own? Does the ruling mean that if they don't have any IP they have to get some IP?
        
        What about the IP that other people own and Righthaven doesn't own? Do the other people have to turn it over to Righthaven so that Righthaven can now own it and then claim to own so that they then turn it over to the court?
        
        If Righthaven owns any IP, does the IP own them also in return? Does this mean Righthaven have to also turn themselves over to the court? Or is the IP that has to turn Righthaven over to the court?
        
        If so, can IP own IP? Is IP also considered a citizen of the United States, and as such, does it have to turn over to the court the IP? Can IP go to jail? How can Randazza claim that IP can go to jail? I'm just not seeing it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 2:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You read his "I'll explain my thinking" post, didn't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Such speculation is outside the confines of the discussion. The only ones who could know all assets Righthaven owns are Righthaven and its employees. Thanks for trying to derail the conversation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:35am
  
  Re:
  the court ordered it. if they can't/won't comply, are they not in contempt? does it matter if the order is impossible to comply with? do they have the right to outright ignore it without sanctions?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:42am
  
  Re:
  > How can Randazza on the one hand argue that
  > Righthaven doesn't own the copyrights and
  > therefore doesn't have standing, but then
  > on the other hand argue that Righthaven owns
  > the copyrights and must turn them over?
  
  Seems like something Righthaven might be able to argue if it, you know, ACTUALLY SHOWED UP IN COURT.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:42pm
  
  Re:
  No one has ever argued that Righthaven doesn't own the copyrights, they clearly do. The problem for Righthaven is that while they own the copyrights, they didn't retain any of the exclusive rights associated with those copyrights that are required to have standing to sue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:04am

Alt
Well, Righthaven could be on a 3 or 4-week long Chriskwanzakkuh break...
Let's give 'em till mid January to be certain they're really playing dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:32am
  
  Re: Alt
  That's what I thought - they're pulling a SCOX - turns out they can't reply because their office closed because of this unexpected christmas holiday season!
  
  They're a law firm, you can't honestly expect them to know about calendars or anything, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phalamir, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:21am

How can Randazza on the one hand argue that Righthaven doesn't own the copyrights and therefore doesn't have standing, but then on the other hand argue that Righthaven owns the copyrights and must turn them over?

I was under the impression that it wasn't for the copyrights under dispute, but for other copyrights Righthaven had, so that Radazza could collect the monies the court says are owed. "That's my car!" "No, it isn't" "Yes it is!" "No, it isn't; but to repay me for all the expense of showing it isn't, you need to hand over the other car over there"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:24am

Oh this gets better and better.

Since Righthaven showed the courts the paperwork for ownership of copyrights, they now have to hand it over, that is just priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:29am

And it gets even better. The Righthaven website is gone: http://www.righthaven.com

And the WHOIS lists Randazza Legal Group as the administrative and technical contact: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/righthaven.com

Looks like Righthaven turned over the domain name at least. If they auction it off I might have to place a bid for shits and giggles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  What's interesting about Righthaven turning over the domain name to Randazza is that we had a discussion about whether domain names could be used to satisfy a judgment creditor in the comments here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110224/11500513247/amicus-brief-calls-into-question-legality-righ thavens-entire-business-model.shtml
  
  I'd have to read through it all again, but I think I remember Randazza citing authority saying that you COULDN'T satisfy a judgment with a domain name. Wouldn't that be ironic?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  More info on the Righthaven domain name: http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/dec/22/dismantling-righthaven-appears-under-way-loss-webs/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:35am

No body expected this twist in the plot, maybe right haven never existed and its a figment of the internets imagination......

Inception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:36am

The Drizzle?
Who is the Drizzle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:40am
  
  Re: The Drizzle?
  10th member of wutang
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:16am
    
    Re: Re: The Drizzle?
    "This" is not the answer, but it should be.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:42am
  
  Re: The Drizzle?
  I know Drizzle is the name of a paint color from Sherwin-Williams. I see it everyday since my wife (unfortunately) picked it for our bathroom. http://www.sherwin-williams.com/do_it_yourself/paint_colors/ideas/color/SW6479/
  
  But other than that it's apparently Steve Gibson's wife's nickname. Now, I can't say for sure, but I suspect she's a sharp dresser with a Bluetooth earpiece.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:05am
    
    Re: Re: The Drizzle?
    You really have your bathroom coloured "Drizzle"? Were they all out of Tinkle?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: The Drizzle?
  Drizzle is Gibson't second wife, Raisha. Here is a set of pictures of Gibson, his wife and their soon-to-be-confiscated nice house: http://lasvegasnewspaper.blog.com/gibsonshome/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re: The Drizzle?
    Well there ya go. Thanks. She's actually quite beautiful. Good for Steve. Nice pad too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 4:47pm
    
    Re: Re: The Drizzle?
    Ha, pinoy with karaoke!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Drizzle?
      He has a sweet tooth for asians :) His first wife Makiko is a Japanese. He has 2 adult kids with her - Joshua and Ashley.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re: The Drizzle?
    Wow... those personal pics actually make me feel bad for the guy... His lifestyle doesnt even amount to 10% of the image he put out in all the articles and that wired photo where hes holding his crotch... LMAO! Go to hell douche bag.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:20am
  
  Re: The Drizzle?
  http://video.adultswim.com/aqua-teen-hunger-force/who-is-the-drizzle.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:37am

Your continued verbal fellatio of Marc Randazza sickens me. All the good he does in the fight against Righthaven is far outweighed by his extortion of gays for personal profit. The man has no ethics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someantimalwareguy (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:52am
  
  Re:
  ...The man has no ethics.
  Well, he is a lawyer...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:56am
  
  Re:
  Give credit where credit is due. Techdirt has lambasted him in the other cases he is involved in. Just shows that he is in it for the money and not some moral stance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nastybutler, 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:27am
  
  Re:
  I'm not sure what you're refering to with that verbal fellatio comment. Mike is just stateing the facts of these cases against Righthaven in which they don't have a leg to stand on and Randazza is taking them to school. There is no personal praise of Randazza that I see.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:32am
  
  Re:
  While I agree with your last statement, like previous repliers to your comment, don't see any "verbal fellatio" here.
  
  � la guerre comme � la guerre - we bound to make temporary fellowships with otherwise disgusting characters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:21am

Hmm.. maybe Gibson/Mangano heeded my advice not to respond to copyright trolls' scary letters? ...but I'm not sure my advice applies in this particular case.

Anyway it is always fun to watch how trolls cannibalize each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  Another interesting fact about copyright troll Righthaven vs.copyright troll Randazza: I just learned that Righthaven owns(?) copyrights on 2 adult movies.
  
  I can't imagine the fun of watching Randazza defending recipients of pay-or-else letters alleging illegal file-sharing sent by Righthaven!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:41am

Shawn Magnano
I wonder how much of this is actual strategy? It's possible that Mr. Magnano is ignoring the court on his own. He certainly wouldn't be the first attorney to try and ignore a devastating loss in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:16am

"I can't see how that ends well for Righthaven. The rest of us will get a good belly laugh out of it."

There, FTFY. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 26 Dec 2011 @ 4:06pm

Personality types
Most corporations act like adult psychopaths, but Righthaven ... Righthaven is different. Righthaven acts like a petulant child, and now it's decided to go sulk in the corner because Mommy said no, it can't have something it wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]