Raul’s Comments

• Sep 24th, 2012 @ 7:36pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Another Judge Blasts Copyright Trolls
  The entire Opinion and Order is nothing more than Judge Baer exercising his considerable discretion under the rules governing permissive joinder. Judicial discretion is exactly where judgment, experience and common sense come into play, fact finding is almost beside the point.
• Jun 19th, 2012 @ 7:16pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  on Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
  BTW Anonymous Coward must be pissed as the llast few posts by AC have been by me, Raul. Must be a Ghost in the Machine.
• Jun 18th, 2012 @ 8:57pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

  on Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
  Too funny! Good night all.
• Jun 18th, 2012 @ 8:19pm

  Re: A proper analogy

  on Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
  Hilarious! Still wiping tears away.
• Jun 18th, 2012 @ 8:11pm

  Re: Re:

  on Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
  Going back to the drowning baby analogy. Scenario 1:Roomie is using my ISP to loot porn and I do nothing. Scenario 2: Roomie is looting porn and I try to stop him but fail because I am not a good preventer. Which scenario exposes me to a more viable negligence claim? Troll, your BS claim just does not hold water, much less float a tugboat.
• Jun 18th, 2012 @ 4:36pm

  (untitled comment)

  on Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
  Imagine your front yard has a mailbox and your neighbor strolls along and uses your mailbox to mail anthrax to Congress, under your analysis, you are liable? Better anology is the one every first year law student is presented:
  You are walking down the street and see a baby face down in a pool water drowning. If you walk on by you are not negligent just an asshole.However, if you stop and try to save the baby but are unsuccessful you can be sued for negligence. In the first situation there is no legal duty of reasonable care in the second situation you have created such a duty.
  In this mean spirited and BS lawsuit there is siimply no duty of care regardless as to how the troll tries to spin it.
• Jun 18th, 2012 @ 4:17pm

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EFF is lying

  on Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
  DTD just hit the nail squarely on the head.
• Jun 18th, 2012 @ 11:17am

  Re: The EFF is lying

  on Once More, With Feeling: Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' Under The Law
  So T has a duty of care to LMH? Why?
• Jun 16th, 2012 @ 12:08pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  on When Even Comcast Is Refusing To Identify Those Accused Of Infringement...
  And then they could sue the distributor and the maker of the modem for good measure.