From Manwin
NEW ALLEGATIONS OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES BY ICANN AND ICM DISCLOSED IN MANWIN ANTITRUST SUIT
LOS ANGELES (February 17, 2011) – Manwin Licensing International, an information technology company specializing in highly trafficked websites and online adult entertainment, today filed an amended complaint in its lawsuit for antitrust violations against the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and ICM Registry (ICM).
ICM is the sole operator of the .XXX registry, and was exclusively selected for that position by ICANN, which must approve the operators of all Top Level Domain names. The lawsuit seeks to redress monopolistic, anti-competitive practices in the .XXX top-level domain name.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the amended complaint adds new details about the illegal scheme by ICANN and ICM to eliminate competitive bidding and market restraints in, and to monopolize, the markets for .XXX registry services. These details include, for example, information about how ICANN profited from the scheme, what ICM and ICANN discussed about above-market pricing in the .XXX registry, and ICM’s coercive acts intended to secure ICANN’s agreement to the scheme.
The amended complaint also drops two related state law claims against ICM and ICANN, without in any manner affecting the remedies which Manwin seeks. While Manwin believes that it would have prevailed on the two state law claims, those claims involved procedural peculiarities of California law that posed risks of potential trial delay. Manwin is anxious to have its day in court and did not want any such delay.
"The filing of an amended complaint in our antitrust case was required to avoid unnecessary procedural delays by ICM and ICANN," said Kevin E. Gaut, counsel for Manwin and partner with Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP. "It also reinforces the fact that both ICANN and ICM both knew that the terms of the .XXX registry contract would permit ICM to charge supra-competitive prices and prevent competitors from entering the market. We are still pursuing all of the remedies filed in the original complaint."
Manwin originally filed the antitrust case against ICM and ICANN on November 16, 2011.
Wow, you mean they’re not settling? LMFAO
I love the fact that a “moron” on a lesser site failed to grasp that the apparently “pro-settlement” language previously reported is actually a kind of boilerplate that parties throw into such filings as a sign of good faith, and out of respect for the court. That language was indicative of NOTHING; it’s boilerplate, a pro forma thing.
The parties at this point might still settle, or they might not, but to have conflated that excerpted passage, in and of itself, as an indicator of any particular heading of the parties, was stupidity. All one would have had to do is ask an attorney — that is, if one were truly so concerned with “credibility…”
Amateur, amateur, amateur.
This is interesting. From the newswire:
Thousands of people who have been sued for downloading movies can breathe sigh of relief, for now at least. A Florida judge has stopped 27 mass-BitTorrent lawsuits because the attorney for the copyright holders appears to be unlicensed. The cases are likely to be dismissed and the plaintiffs will not be allowed to demand settlements from the accused file-sharers.
The ongoing mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the U.S. continue to keep the United States judicial system busy. More than 250,000 people have been sued over the last two years and new lawsuits are being filed every week.
Through these mass lawsuits the copyright holders are trying to obtain the personal details of BitTorrent users who allegedly shared their material online. Once this information is handed over, they then offer the defendant the opportunity to settle the case for a few hundred up to a couple of thousand dollars.
The scheme is used by well known copyright holders such as the makers of the Oscar winning movie The Hurt Locker and book publishers John Wiley and Sons. However, the majority of the cases are filed by adult entertainment companies. Many of these companies can make more money from lawsuits than selling content and are often described as copyright trolls.
Tarik Hashmi of the Transnational Law Group is one of the attorneys who filed dozens of cases on behalf of adult companies in Florida. However, these have now been halted by District Court Judge Hinkle and may be soon dismissed entirely. It appears that Hashmi is practicing law in the Florida federal court without the proper license, an issue that was brought up by a notice three defendants filed at the court.
“All proceedings and all deadlines that have not passed are stayed pending a determination of whether these cases should be dismissed—or other appropriate action taken—based on the notice suggesting that the plaintiffs’ attorney Terik Hashmi resides but is not licensed to practice law in Florida,” Judge Hinkle writes.
While the attorney is given a chance to respond to the allegations, for now he is no longer allowed to demand settlements from the thousands of defendants who are accused in 27 separate mass-BitTorrent lawsuits.
“Until this issue is resolved by a further order of this court, Mr. Hashmi must not attempt to settle any of these cases, must not accept any payment in settlement of any of these cases, and must not take any other action in any of these cases,” the judge writes.
If the investigation into Hashmi concludes that the attorney is indeed not qualified, all cases are likely to be dismissed. Although this would be great news for the thousands of people accused in these specific cases, it will do little to stop new mass-BitTorrent lawsuits from being filed.
As long as the scheme is greatly profitable for both attorneys and the copyright holders, the lawsuits will continue.
Karmafan… Leave it up to porn companies to hire a lawyer without a degree, they too busy trying to get a payday without making sure their mouthpiece even has a degree!
I have to read up on this case but, frankly, I shrug on the issue of .xxx.