Sadly it take a LOT to get labeled as vexatious. Look up the lawsuit history of the man who started "GOD HATES FAGS" church (I cant be bothered to google them).Cap said:I'd not impossible he might get labeled vexatious; that'd sink his little boat right away.PainInTheAssInternet said:I'm not sure if the precedent would go that far, but my concern is the total lack of it. If someone else gets sue-happy down the line, they can't learn from Romnie's mistakes because the message being sent here is not "the argument is abusive and nonsensical" but rather "the Romnie's were too incompetent to correctly state their case." On more moral grounds, I really don't like it when people lose not due to the morality and strength of their arguments but because the judicial process is so hung up on the smallest of technicalities. James' stupidity is actively preventing justice and the justice system won't look past that to address the core issue.Ima Lemming said:While I'd love for the case to get thrown out tomorrow so Jim could move on with his life, I agree. It would also set the precedent that you can't sue for lost revenue when somebody called your shit products shit (I think? Not a lawyer here).
Not likely, but not impossible. He's basically just making a nuisance of himself at this point.
Well, on the bright side it was dismissed with prejudice, so he'll have to suck up whatever happens next.minkus_draconus said:Sadly it take a LOT to get labeled as vexatious. Look up the lawsuit history of the man who started "GOD HATES FAGS" church (I cant be bothered to google them).
I doubt this is anywhere in the ballpark of enough.
It might still have, but we'll never know since they essentially both agreed to drop it.minkus_draconus said:Sadly it take a LOT to get labeled as vexatious. Look up the lawsuit history of the man who started "GOD HATES FAGS" church (I cant be bothered to google them).Cap said:I'd not impossible he might get labeled vexatious; that'd sink his little boat right away.PainInTheAssInternet said:I'm not sure if the precedent would go that far, but my concern is the total lack of it. If someone else gets sue-happy down the line, they can't learn from Romnie's mistakes because the message being sent here is not "the argument is abusive and nonsensical" but rather "the Romnie's were too incompetent to correctly state their case." On more moral grounds, I really don't like it when people lose not due to the morality and strength of their arguments but because the judicial process is so hung up on the smallest of technicalities. James' stupidity is actively preventing justice and the justice system won't look past that to address the core issue.Ima Lemming said:While I'd love for the case to get thrown out tomorrow so Jim could move on with his life, I agree. It would also set the precedent that you can't sue for lost revenue when somebody called your shit products shit (I think? Not a lawyer here).
Not likely, but not impossible. He's basically just making a nuisance of himself at this point.
I doubt this is anywhere in the ballpark of enough.