When getting ready to learn about a legal decision, it's best to brace yourself for a lot of reading; court documents can be ridiculously long. But when siding with Google, the Third Circuit used less than two pages, and this pretty fairly represents how ridiculous the lawsuit was.
Remember the handwritten ramblings asserting that the word "Google" was a scrambled version of some guy's social security number? Said guy - Dylan Stephen Jayne - wanted $5 billion as a result. And now Jayne has lost his appeal.
The Third Circuit's per curiam decision, which was provided by Eric Goldman, states, "As explained by the District Court, Google and its founders are not state actors, and Jayne's allegation concerning his coded social security number does not constitute a violation of the Constitution or federal law. We also agree that any amendment of the complaint would be futile."
There's really no other place to go with this story; it's just an example of the legal system working efficiently for once. Still, you have to wonder how much money (in terms of judges' salaries and lawyers' fees) Jayne wasted with the whole episode.
SEO Step Six of Ten: Social MediaGoogle - Soft on Privacy?Retailers Panic Over Google Site SearchGoogle News Slow To Reinstate UN CriticGoogle Getting Aggressive with AdvertisingGoogle Sacrifices Clicks To Increase Advertiser ROIConflicting Futures for Social NetworksMobile Social Networking Set To Take Off Top 15 Social Media Marketing ResourcesGoogle Devaluing DMOZ and Yahoo! Links?
Comments
SSN lawsuit.
You guys are not going to beleive this, but I just Googled my Social Security Number and I was redirected to the Microsoft Home page. Looks like I got a lawsuit on my hands.
What do you think I should suit for?
Of course not
Of course Google is not this guy's social security number coded. I know this because Google is my social security number coded. I'm going to the Federal courthouse this afternoon.
Frivolous lawsuits
Its only common sense that somebody who loses a frivolous lawsuit should have to pay the other parties legal expense, but of course this will never happen because their are too many attorneys making money off of frivolous lawsuits.
Another Idea
No jail time, that's just silly for civil actions. However, I do think that the losing side should pay the winners court costs (unless, at judges discression he felt that both parties had a real and legitimate argument). That way, frivilous lawsuits don't penalize the targeted party by having to pay high legal bills.
Scribbled Lawsuit Against Google Loses Again
They should have a way for a judge to declare a lawsuit frivolous. Then whatever you asked for, you have to pay, to the person you were suing and serve jail time. Say 1 month for every $1,000 that you were asking for. After a mandatory psych exam, which this guy seemed to need.
Frivolous lawsuits. Send them to jail?
Sending them to jail - great! We need more people in prison. And giving judges a way of throwing a lawsuit out before it's even been heard, that sounds tricky - should it be based on handwritting or haircut?
Jail or...
So, you believe that the guy suing for $60 million dollars because he didn't remember which pants he dropped off at the cleaners should be walking around in public?
There was this theory some guy named Darwin had, whereby all the people unfit to live in society would be naturally weeded out of the gene pool.
I think we need to give it a hand. How about deportation and stripping citizenship rights for people like this? Execution maybe?
Anyone this selfish is already going to hell, so why not give them their free ticket?
Judges throwing out frivolous suits
I don't see a problem with a judge determining if a lawsuit has merit before allowing it to go to trial. It happens all the time in criminal courts - it's called a preliminary hearing. The prosecution (plaintiff) must prove that there is sufficient evidence to go to trial. The defendant may or may not present evidence and then the judge rules on whether the case should go to trial. The case doesn't have to be proven, just enough evidence is presented to show that there is reasonable grounds for trial.
Send them to Jail?
Hehe.
You really rounded it good Mark! Personally I'd judge based on the use or not of the word "evil" in the description of the crime.
Pascal
Post new comment