Hacker News Reader

That's how it works though. You go after the weakest , least sympathetic, least able to respond, and set the precedent.

Sorta like weev. There are plenty of reasons to not like the guy. But that's the case that made changing the numbers in a URL a possible felony.

Anyway, once they get that first win, they pick on a slightly larger target, and cite the first win as precident.

View on HN

Why not sue in their home country? Google has a business presence. This is more for show and headlines.

Does a default judgment (no show) set any citable precedent?

Not a lawyer.

I'd imagine if they rack up a bunch of no-shows They could change their dmca handling process. We're not honoring these without property X, because these last hundred or thousand or whatever turned out to be fake.

I guess, I'd assert google lawyers are not dumb, and they probably have a reason to start stacking "wins". But I don't know what the strategy or end goal might be. I'm just some random guy on the internet with an opinion.

That makes sense to me. "Procedural precedent + metrics" versus actual legal precedent.

Not really. Sure you can refer to them, but the first lawyer who shows up will point out the others were no shows and the judge won't pay much attention to results.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com