Paul Quinn points us to this absolutely wonderful, must-watch interview Right Haven CEO Steve Gibson, Jon Ralston, keep the back doesn 't at all . The opening question is, "You're really screwed this whole thing up, didn 't you \?" From there begins Gibson squirming to pretend that it's all small "technical"'s questions - and say that Ralston is "with statements out of context," when he talks about the allegations of judges of the "dishonest "asked behavior. Ralston doesn 't let up, but Gibson accused of running a "Shake Down" fraud and calling the whole thing "stupid". It 'sa funny part in which Gibson told Ralston that he the judiciary has to respect, and Ralston practically laughing cracks and pointed out that the judges in these cases have made clear that it 's Right Haven that doesn' t as to the judicial process with their actions. Gibson 's attempt to tapdance, that with the assertion that all judges have said that they need a documentation of beef is pretty funny. Did he really think that he 's fool anyone? Or is he just trying to deceive themselves?

It gets even better. Gibson tried a new tactic to explain why the judges have so thoroughly Right Haven 's cases devastated. You see, all the bad words about Right Haven 's dishonest activities and questionable behavior? Obviously, that 's not really meant for Right Haven at all. Oh, no, no. Respect the judge and estimate Right Haven, but they 're so impressed by Right Haven' s brilliant legal minds that they \ s plan others are afraid Right Haven \ copy '... and the use of smart lawyers who aren 't quite like that. I 'm not joking:

GIBSON: I think part of what 's happening here is that the federal judge realized that Right Haven has set some of the best lawyers in the country. Copyright lawyers. Harvard law professors. And they understand that we re 'with a reputable organization such as Stephens Media related .... In any case, I think what the judges say is, \ be heard ', folks, is Right Haven filing a lot of complaints. "You understand that we 're potentially real terms of the protection of copyright. 'T want to see Right Haven competitors come up with potentially no solid documentation, and they' You don \ re give us guidance as to what should be the documentation.

I 'm fascinated that someone may have a similar statement and not their brains explode from the sheer dishonesty of it. No, Steve, the judges aren 't to give guidance Right Haven competitors. You 're threatening to punish you (big time) for filing a series of bogus lawsuits, for the Nevada bar examines your attorneys as well.

Also, maybe I heard wrong, but just before the first commercial break, Gibson said it sounded like (1) that only Right Haven legal standing and (2) is that they only granted one Stephens Media non-exclusive License. I don 't think either claim is correct. Even if you get the idea that Right Haven had the copyrights of Stephens and then licensed back to Stephens, Stephens would probably be standing (Right Haven, on the other side does not), to grant. Also, it seems clear that Right Haven no right to further license the work in question to anyone other than Stephens Media, so I don 't see how the' sa non-exclusive license to all.

But, frankly, that 's all sideshow. Right Haven has badly lost and it looks like Gibson hasn 't quite confrontation with his company as much trouble can come in.

Permalink | Comments | E-mail this story