Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[klr]

Josh is an utter dufus

Pappa's post: abridged version. Practically lossless compression.

A joke that only an IT type can truly appreciate ...

[lordpasternack]

Josh is an utter dufus

Pappa's post: abridged version. Practically lossless compression.

A joke that only an IT type can truly appreciate ...

I've done my bit... I won the prize for Computing for my year in my last year of secondary school. I was a programming addict who spoke to the teacher in pseudocode when assigned a task. There was a chance I would have studied Computer Science at university. Sorry I left you guys for bioscience...

[Pappa]

Josh is an utter dufus

Pappa's post: abridged version. Practically lossless compression.

Josh = dick

[lordpasternack]

Josh is an utter dufus

Pappa's post: abridged version. Practically lossless compression.

Josh = dick

For loop = 0 to ∞

If Richard_Dawkins_case = True Then
Josh = dick
Else call Public Sub re-examine_situation (ByRef "Josh", ByVal "dick")
End if

[Svartalf]

Josh liked Chinchillas before it was cool to like Chinchillas.

But how long does he like them alive more than his gf likes them better as coats?

[hadespussercats]

Hahahaha.... the documents have been removed. What a surprise. Josh is an utter dufus for posting anything online about it while proceeding are... erm... proceeding.

That's just what I thought, too.

[lordpasternack]

These deserve a reprise:

and

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 50#p352068

[Bella Fortuna]

[charlou]

Josh is an utter dufus

Pappa's post: abridged version. Practically lossless compression.

Josh = dick

This is an insult to good penises everywhere, Pappa. As there are many ratz members of this kind I will remind you to play nice with them.

[lordpasternack]

Josh is an utter dufus

Pappa's post: abridged version. Practically lossless compression.

Josh = dick

This is an insult to good penises everywhere, Pappa. As there are many ratz members of this kind I will remind you to play nice with them.

Is it alright if I play nice with them too? And will any subsequent changes in the rules be retroactively applied?

[Coito ergo sum]

Josh has provided some new court documents on his website:

http://joshtimonen.com/post/1485864594/ ... of-removal

Very nice - they did, as I suspected and suggested, explore the ability to "remove" the case to federal court. And, they have filed a "notice of removal" alleging a "federal question" under the federal Copyright Act. It looks like a valid notice of removal with substantial basis, but both sides have an argument here. RDF never explicitly alleged a federal claim, but Timonen says that RDF's complaint is "artfully drafted" to avoid the explicit mention, but nevertheless it in reality purports to allege a copyright claim. So, the ball is RDF's court to file a "motion to remand" the case back to state court. They have 30 days from November 4 to file such a motion. If they do, the burden is on Timonen to show that the case is properly in federal court.

I can't seem to open the copyright notice to counsel. Anyone else having trouble?

[Coito ergo sum]

*waits for Coito's review (which will no doubt be longer than the documents themselves).

Point well-taken, in general.

[Coito ergo sum]

Josh liked Chinchillas before it was cool to like Chinchillas.

He's trying to look sensitive, that means the poor things gonna be a chinchilla chimichanga before the weeks out is we don't do something!!!

Nah - he'll just say that he invented it and claim all the profits deriving from chinchillas rightly belong to him.

Put $300,000 or $400,000 in front of somebody, and we see exactly what they're capable of. People will generally recall the facts and the rights/wrongs in a way that has them coming away with the $300,000 or $400,000. Humans just seem to do that - the rich, the poor, the white, the black, the theist, and the atheist.

[Warren Dew]

Very nice - they did, as I suspected and suggested, explore the ability to "remove" the case to federal court. And, they have filed a "notice of removal" alleging a "federal question" under the federal Copyright Act. It looks like a valid notice of removal with substantial basis, but both sides have an argument here. RDF never explicitly alleged a federal claim, but Timonen says that RDF's complaint is "artfully drafted" to avoid the explicit mention, but nevertheless it in reality purports to allege a copyright claim. So, the ball is RDF's court to file a "motion to remand" the case back to state court. They have 30 days from November 4 to file such a motion. If they do, the burden is on Timonen to show that the case is properly in federal court.

Why did you think Josh was better off in federal court? It seems to me keeping it in a California court would allow him to try to paint the case as "some mean foreigner trying to take advantage of a nice local California company".

[Coito ergo sum]

I've sort of been following this, but am not legally-literate enough to understand what the point of the new documents is. What's being removed?

A "notice of removal" is a document that a defendant (Timonen) files in a state court civil case. The purpose of the document is to "remove" (i.e. in effect, "transfer") the case from the state court to a federal court. So, it is the case that is being removed. They are removing it from the state court where RDF originally filed it and then putting it in the federal court.

Does this mean the case has been dropped, or moved to another court, or what?

Moved to another court.

Are they documents that he has received, or that he has submitted?

Submitted. He filed a notice of removal in federal court with a copy of the original complaint, and filed a copy with the state court. The state court then automatically transfers the file from the state court to the federal court. The plaintiff has 30 days to file a "motion to remand" if it thinks that the removal was either procedurally or substantively improper.

Also, what's his defense? Is it

a) that he never took the money
b) he was entitled to the money and he took it, and hasn't done anything wrong
c) the precise manner in which he was employed did not legally prevent him from taking the money, so he did; You snooze you lose.

?

He hasn't raised a defense in the documents that were posted. He will raise his defenses when he either (a) files an answer to the complaint along with a document entitled "affirmative defenses" or (b) files a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the federal rules of civil procedure. If I were a bettin' man, I would expect Timonen to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion first, and then if any of the case survives that motion then he will file an answer and affirmative defenses.