Lawsuits

... but then I didn't see much attention paid to Parker v DC, either, until Alan started to win.  He's arguing this case too.  Funding for the case is coming from the Second Amendment Foundation, which is often an unnoticed partner in gun rights cases.

For that matter, the woman who was arrested for dancing in the Thomas Jefferson Memorial has filed a lawsuit.  And guess who is arguing it?  Alan Gura, again.

If the First Amendment protects strip clubs, then it surely protects ballroom dancing.  And Gura is exactly the person to prove it.  I just hope he's not stretching himself too thin,

The news is all over the airwaves: Justice Souter, one of the reliably liberal votes on the Court, is retiring.  Cynics may note that the timing of the rumors began shortly after Arlen Specter switched parties, giving Obama's appointment a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority.  Dave Kopel profiles some of the possible appointments at the Second Amendment Project.

None of them are really any good for the 2nd Amendment.  But we knew that already.

Dave Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy has a short podcast about three upcoming cases that may bring the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment before the Supreme Court.  There's a long and heated debate in the comments, but the anti-gun side is particularly resistant to rational argument.

... they are emphasizing the Chicago cases, since those are likely to lead the way on incorporation.  The article has a mild bias, beginning with quotes from the lawyer who expects to defend Chicago's gun ban, and including a few paragraphs down the claim that guns kill children and prevent the Olympics and probably blend puppies too:

In recent years, gunfire has killed dozens of Chicago schoolchildren. The city received a potential PR setback in its bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics when four people were shot?one fatally?downtown July 3 as a crowd of more than 1 million dispersed after the city?s Independence Day fireworks show.

That's hardly relevant to an article on the legal issues of the 2nd Amendment.  Somewhat better is their discussion of the three precedents the city plans to rely on:

In the seminal 1875 case, United States v. Cruikshank, the court vacated the convictions of members of a white mob accused of depriving blacks of their Second Amend­ment right to keep and bear arms. Though cryptic in its reasoning, the court left no doubt that the amendment was the wrong tool: ?This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.?

I don't think this case will be very helpful to Chicago's side.  We're talking about a racist mob violating the civil rights of black citizens.  It  would be unconscionable to uphold an openly racist precedent in the face of contradictory precedents for the other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.  This case is also trivially distinguishable from the current situation because private actions infringing a civil right (ie, the mob) are not the same as state or local laws doing so.

City lawyers also are keen on Pres­ser v. Illinois, where the court in 1886 held that the amendment didn?t pre­vent the state from prohib­iting a parade of 400 armed men through the streets of Chicago. Similarly in 1894, the court, in Miller v. Texas, affirmed a state law forbid­ding a murder defendant from carrying a weapon.

Miller v Texas won't be helpful, because Heller doesn't challenge felon-in-possession and the vast majority of people in Chicago aren't felons.  Presser is even less helpful because the Chicago laws are a complete ban on possession, not merely a ban on firearms carried in public.  If those are the only cases in Chicago's quiver they will likely lose... barring an Obama presidency and judicial retirements.  The ABA gets fair credit for accepting that in the article, although they use the point to bring up how DC responded to keep restrictive laws in place following their loss in Heller. 

It's clear the ABA has chosen a side, but the bits of strategy noted are interesting.

... another in a series of post-Heller lawsuits.  

The NRA may have made some errors in its California lawsuit.  The article isn't very helpful on describing exactly what the problem is, I'll have to get my hands on the original source documents for that.  But the city's attorney seeking sanctions isn't a good sign.

Mark Marchiafava was arrested for opening carrying a firearm -- even though it's legal to do so.  He sued the city that arrested him, and received a significant settlement (the exact amount is confidential).

After his arrest, Marchiafava said, Police Chief Bill Landry told other people: ?We have a policy of arresting anybody carrying any type of firearm without a concealed-gun permit."

And yet...

?We will follow the law as prescribed,? Landry said, adding that the law permits carrying a firearm in an unconcealed holster. But Landry will not discuss the case further.

Pity it takes a lawsuit and a substantial out-of-court settlement to get police officers to know and follow the law.

[via WarOnGuns]

One of the best things about defending yourself with a gun is that very often you don't have to actually use it.  Merely showing the criminal your gun can often encourage the attacker to flee, similar to cockroaches scuttling for the nearest rock when you shine a light on them.

And you know what?  It applies to governments, too.

Snowflakes In Hell gets the hat tip for this one.

Kevin at The Smallest Minority and Uncle of SaysUncle are both complaining about the requirement for "standing" in order to challenge a law on Constitutional grounds.  In so doing, though, they are overstating the requirements a little. Kevin's summary was:

There's something wrong with a system that essentially demands that you break a law before you can challenge its Constitutionality.

I would be in full agreement with that statement, if in fact it was accurate.  However, it's not actually the case for most challenges.  I don't want to claim more expertise than I actually have, not being a lawyer, but as I understand it, the standing requirement is "an actual case or controversy".  That's not very illuminating, but when it is applied to First Amendment cases, it is generally applied such that you do NOT have to violate a law and wait to be charged before you can challenge the law.  Generally, for a First Amendment case, it's sufficient to show that something you want to publish might cause you to be charged if you actually do.  Usually you have to have some specific work in mind, for example, but even that isn't necessary if you're talking about, say, a regularly published magazine or newspaper, or some sort of project that you can specifically define but haven't yet invested money in producing (because it would be illegal). 

I'm afraid that standing, as applied to the 2nd Amendment, is another example of "gun bigots" applying different standards as a result of their bigotry. 

In the case of the DC Circuit, the courts were bound by the Navegar precedent.  That case arose from the assault weapons ban and set a very, very high bar for standing in gun related cases.  That bar was set so high, in fact, that a visit by BATFE agents to a firearms manufacturer to individually notify the manufacturer that certain of their products, named specifically in the law, was not deemed a "specific and individualized threat of prosecution"... because the manufacturer in question chose to comply with the law rather than disregard it (and risk a felony conviction if he lost).  If that sounds like nonsense to you, well, I can't say I disagree.

The bar is set significantly lower for First Amendment cases.  I'm not sure where it is set for other Constitutional rights, but I imagine the extremes of the issue are defined by the First and Second Amendment rights.

Perhaps one of the lawyers familiar with this issue and how standing in firearms cases differs from standing in First Amendment cases could give a good summary?

A lawyer/blogger is calling for student, staff, or faculty plaintiffs willing to sue public universities with gun free zone policies.  I can't vouch for whether he's any good as a lawyer, but those interested can look for themselves.  I certainty think someone should do this, but we need the best possible plaintiff and representation, so I'm not saying this is the right lawyer or you're the right plaintiff.  It's worth a thought, though.

The press has been making a lot of noise about a bill that recently passed the House. The bill would make explicit the long-understood principle that manufacturers are not legally liable for the criminal misuse of their legal products. The only thing about this bill that should surprise anyone is that Congress felt the need to make the principle explicit. After all, we all recognize that you can't sue a brewery because someone got drunk, tried to drive home, and killed someone in an accident. When criminal misuse begins, legal liability ends -- in fact, legal liability often ends well before the point of criminal misuse.

So why does Congress feel the need to restate this principle? Well, it seems that a certain group of people think that a political hot-button issue is enough to override the usual principles of law. They think that a pitiful enough victim will melt the heart of a judge enough to allow their claims to pass. And if it doesn't, well, there's always another victim, another judge, another jurisdiction.

Because there are lots of victims, but there is only a very small group behind the lawsuits. Yes, that's lawsuits -- plural. It's not a single abusive lawsuit, it is a systematic pattern of abuse. Not incidentally, exactly the sort of problem that a change in the law is meant to correct.

When I say a "certain group of people", I'm not referring to some nebulous grouping on the level of "people who like black cats". No, I'm referring to organizations. Perhaps 5-10 different organizations, counting a number of city governments and an approximately equal number of political organizations.

Oh, didn't I mention that? These suits are all brought by non-profit political lobbying groups, often in collaboration with city governments or puppet victims as the official plaintiffs. But these political organizations are paying the legal costs for the suits. Makes you go "hmm", doesn't it?

The truth is, these political organizations are trying to use the courts to force their targeted organizations to do business differently -- or not at all. They want court settlements or a judge's court-ordered sentence, but if they can't get either, they'll settle for suing their targets over and over and over again until they go bankrupt. After all, it's a lot easier and cheaper to file a lawsuit than it is to defend against one.

And who knows? If they keep trying, maybe they'll eventually get a judge willing to be swayed by his personal biases long enough to get a verdict in their favor. But that's not really a necessary part of their strategy; driving their targets out of business would do just fine.

And we're not talking about a safety issue here. These aren't SUVs with faulty tires and a tendency to roll over and play dead. We're talking about ordinary household items being used to commit crimes and then blaming the manufacturer of the product -- sort of like driving drunk, killing someone, and then suing the bar that sold you the beer along with the company that brewed and bottled it.

By this time you're probably not surprised that these groups have chosen this particular tactic because they can't get their programs through the legislature. They've been trying for about 70 years, and until recently they've had some amount of success. The past few years have seen their efforts dry up, though, and even in many places get rolled back. They're nervous. They're afraid. They're realizing that the American people really, fundamentally disagree with the principles they have chosen to dedicate their lives to supporting. And so they grasp at straws, and their allies in the media help them out by spinning the issue the way that these special-interest groups want it spun.

So what's the issue here?

Gun control.

If this surprises you, or if you're familiar with the issue but haven't heard it described this way before, maybe it's time you asked why.

(Note: This is an older article that I am reposting to get it into the archives properly.  The bill I mentioned was the first version of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which has since become law.)
 

Mark was arrested in Louisiana for open carry of his firearm, which is legal in that state.  He has now filed suit.  Nicki at The Liberty Zone seems to be on top of the case.

... if it gets to court, anyway.  It seems that the Violence Policy Center stole footage from Scott at the subguns discussion board, and he's considering legal action.  This could be fun.  I got the tip from SaysUncle.

This notice is a bit belated, but I'd like to offer congratulations to FishOrMan, who has won his appeal while representing himself, striking a small but personally significant blow for open-carry.

I've stayed away from blogging about the case for a couple reasons.  First, it seems to me that his actions were on the borderline of what the law allows; normal open carry is arguably legal under state law, by way of an affirmative defense, but open carry inside a bank strikes me as exactly the sort of situation that might legitimately "warrant alarm", which would violate the law.  Second, representing yourself in court is usually a very poor decision, and rarely bodes well for the results.  Third, given that he was representing himself, any commentary I could have offered would have been uncomfortably close to legal advice, something I am not qualified to offer, and might well do more harm than good.  And fourth, I was concerned that he had gotten himself into a foreseeable bad situation without adequately preparing for it, and thus put the whole concept of open-carry at risk in Washington State.

That said, I have been following the case personally, and I'm glad that he won. 

I do have one caution, though.

Just because you won this one on a technicality doesn't mean you'll win the next one.  Pick your fights more carefully, and make sure you're prepared to fight them before they start.

Alphecca notes a story where a police officer shot a young man with a bb gun, thinking that the gun was real and pointed at him, and asks whether there should be liability for the manufacturer (in making their product look very similar to a real firearm).

First, it's undisputed that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect anything that isn't a firearm, and BB guns clearly do not qualify.  Alphecca notes that he considers them weapons regardless; I agree that some certainly qualify as weapons but I feel they are more closely categorized as something else.  While a bb gun can cause serious injury, if a BB happens to hit a vulnerable spot, wounds from one are rarely life-threatening.

Regardless of whether or not a bb gun is a weapon, however, there should be no liability for the manufacturer.   BB guns closely resembling real firearms have legitimate uses (training, for example).  If criminals use their resemblance to real firearms for intimidation, they have only themselves to blame when the police or an armed citizen don't bother to extend the benefit of the doubt.  And if an innocent kid wants to act like a criminal, using his BB gun, he needs to find better role models... or accept the potentially fatal consequences of his decision not to.

Indeed, the police officer in the case Alphecca describes might well have a case against the deceased for negligent actions leading to emotional distress, lost work, and required counseling.  After all, when you threaten a police officer with what he perceives (reasonably) to be a firearm, the result is entirely predictable.  I'm not that litigious, of course, but the case could be made -- and probably would be made, were it ever to be economically feasible to do so.

But under no circumstances should the manufacturer be liable.  Moreover, a smart manufacturer would be wise to avoid creating a similarity between their BB guns -- which are capable of causing serious injury -- and similar devices which are entirely toys, such as cap guns, which (at least when I was a kid) offered bright orange plastic barrel plugs so that it was obvious the "gun" was not real.  BB guns may not be weapons, in my opinion, but they are definitely potentially dangerous, and should be recognized as such.

David Hardy reports on an Arizona appellate decision concerning negligent entrustment.  The decision reverses a summary judgement grant (meaning the case will go to trial), and the facts aren't pleasant: A habitual drunk with an IQ substantially below average is given a firearm by his father; the gun is subsequently taken away after it was used in a crime (by the owner's brother); the owner of the firearm had shot himself accidentally at least once.  The mother eventually returned the gun to the owner, who used it to shoot and kill someone while drunk.  The owner was charged with manslaughter, and the mother is being sued for negligent entrustment.  All these events involve adults.

While I agree with David that the outcome was foreseeable, albeit not immediately so, I disagree that this means the suit should continue.  The owner's parents had no right to possess or control the gun.  It was his property.  You could make a case for negligent entrustment IF it was an actual transaction rather than a restoration of property to its rightful owner, or if the owner was clearly impaired (drunk) when the firearm was returned.  But if he's not presenting an immediate risk, it's his property, end of story.

Anything else is to legalize theft "for their own good".  We've already seen this tactic in the gun control debate: where do you think all the guns people turn in for gun "buybacks" come from?  Nosy girlfriends and parents stealing the property of their family members or boyfriends and turning it in to the authorities.  It's sort of like the gestapo posters that used to advise you to turn in your friends for fun and profit.  Except that those taking advantage of the programs have to do their own dirty work.

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler promptly came up with a half-cocked scheme to have the provinces empower Canadians to sue U.S. gun manufacturers whose legal products are used illegally in Canada.

It's quite a doctrine, that. The U.S. Congress, as it happens, has just passed a law shielding gun makers and dealers from liability in many negligence lawsuits; it's a bad law in some ways, but so would be any Canadian law saying the maker of a legal product is responsible for the way it's used. Please do not roll up this newspaper and beat anyone to death, no matter how infuriating you find the editorials: we wouldn't much like to be sued, and that surely wouldn't be far down the road. (As for citizens suing the government in Ottawa for bad decisions, on the gun registry, say, where do we sign up?)

That's a good analogy.  They also have about half the right idea about violent crime.

Police and prosecutors there have just stepped up their anti-gun and anti-gang efforts and will add resources by borrowing additional prosecutors. That makes sense: Toronto's gun violence is mainly gang violence. Mercifully, this problem of shooting sprees has not reached Montreal to the same degree as in Toronto, in part no doubt because police here have had some success against gang culture.

Unfortunately, they still think that restricting access to guns is a part of the solution.  But at least they are talking about restricting gang members' access to guns, rather than the general public.

Hours after President Bush signed a new law protecting gun manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson from some lawsuits, the industry filed a motion to dismiss a high-profile case filed by New York City.

But despite the law's clear language dismissing pending municipal lawsuits, both sides expect a fight over the law's legality.

President Bush signed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" at a White House ceremony Wednesday following House passage of the bill earlier this month.

No surprise here.  Now we need to find out whether the judges are willing to apply the law fairly and quickly, or if there's going to be a tussle.

SaysUncle reports that the President signed the bill (via the NRA).  I'll keep my eyes peeled for updates to the cases that would be affected by this. 

He also asks "What next?"  Good question.  In the past I've argued that repealing the Hughes Amendment would be a good step forward.  I'm going to back off of that a little -- I think it might make a better test case for our shiny new Justice and his friends, depending on who the second one turns out to be.  Sporting purposes test is a good target, but mostly symbolic.   

I figure national concealed carry is the next legislative target.  To short-circuit federalism concerns, treat it just like a driver's license -- if you can carry in your home state you can carry anywhere, with criminal penalties for police harassment.  Hell, piggyback it on the state-issued IDs -- amend the RealID act to add a "carry endorsement" to the standard.  Lemonade from lemons...

... has passed the House.   Alphecca has a good description of what it does (and what it doesn't).  It's already passed the Senate.  There shouldn't be a problem with Bush signing it, after which many of the lawsuits against firearms manufacturers will be dismissed.   The case that I have been following, DC v Beretta, should be one of them.

UPDATE: Looks like the trigger lock requirement was included in this version.  That's disappointing, since the version without that requirement could also have passed.  The problem would have been time; reconciling the bills between the House and the Senate would have required more time, and more time means more legal costs defending the suits already in motion.

While I think the trigger lock and "armor-piercing ammunition" provisions are both silly and bad precedent, as a practical matter their effect is small.  The real risk is later laws requiring the use of trigger locks, or lawsuits that make not using them subject to significant risk of liability.

An accidental shooting by a 14-year-old boy in Henrico County could not be the basis of a criminal offense by the boy's father, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled this week.

This is a sensible ruling that is disturbing only in that it comes upon appeal, rather than in the lower court.

Alexander, who had used the weapon since he was 8 years old and had completed a gun safety course, removed the magazine from the rifle and worked the bolt so that he thought the gun was unloaded. The weapon, however, discharged and struck his friend in the head. The friend lost his right eye as a result.

While this particular outcome is tragic, it's clearly a case where no harm was intended. The child did almost everything right; but almost everything was not enough. It's a good case for teaching your kids the rules of gun safety. It's a tragic mistake by someone who, at 14, could reasonably be trusted with the responsibility of firearm. But it's not a crime by the father, who might have made the very same mistake while unloading the rifle.

It also illustrates why gun safety is something that everyone should learn. Quite simply, being safe around guns involves everyone in the vicinity; the person handling the firearm has the primary responsibility but those around him can help by actively staying out of the line of fire in case the person with the firearm forgets. If the victim in this case had known to do that, the tragedy could have been avoided.

This is one of those annoying cases that would have been prevented by S1805 had it become law. This ruling is the 9th Circuit refusing to hear an appeal "en banc", ie, by a panel of all judges on the court. The result of the refusal will be the case moving forward in the lower court.

The basic facts of the case, quoting from one ofthe dissenting opinions:

This is indeed a tragic case. On August 10, 1999, Buford Furrow, a mentally troubled man who was prohibited by federal law from purchasing a gun, approached the North Valley Jewish Community Center (JCC) in Granada Hills, California. He was armed with a number of firearms. He entered the JCC and proceeded to shoot and injure three young children, one teenager, and one adult. Furrow fled the JCC and, later that day, shot and killed Joseph Ileto, a United States Postal worker.

This action, as it comes before this court, is not against Furrow or even against the entities that sold the weapons to Furrow, but against the entities that manufactured the weapons outside of California and sold them outside of California.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant gun manufacturers and distributors produce, distribute, and sell more firearms than legal purchasers can buy, and that they knowingly facilitate, and benefit from, a secondary market where persons who are illegal purchasers and have injurious intent obtain their firearms. Plaintiffs do not allege that Glock did anything illegal. Rather, they argue that Glock knew that the secondary market regularly provides guns to criminals and underage end users, but nonetheless failed to exercise reasonable care to protect the public from the risks created by the distribution and marketing schemes that create an illegal secondary market.

In other words, the gun manufacturer in the Buford Furrow case should somehow have prevented Furrow from acquiring firearms in a secondary transaction to which they were not a party. As you may recall, Furrow was nuts, and even recognized it himself. He was also a prohibited person (by reason of conviction for violent crimes), and the police were supposed to confiscate his firearms -- but they "never got around to it". Oh, well. There's another good quote that really expresses the legal theory of this case perfectly:

Thus, General Motors could be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile. The plaintiff would allege that General Motors knew that cars that can greatly exceed the legal speed limit are dangerous, and through advertising and by offering discounts, it increased the attractiveness of the car and the number of Corvettes on the road and thus increased the likelihood that a juvenile would steal a Corvette and operate it in a injurious manner.

That about says it all.

The Washington DC Brady Group would have you believe they won some kind of victory! The Brady Group brought this lawsuit not for the victims, but for their anti-gun agenda. The Brady Group asked for the settlement conference after reviewing all the evidence they knew they could not be successful in court and they wanted to stop paying lawyer fees.

The Brady Group sent a second tier lawyer to the settlement conference with nine demands on Bushmaster regarding business practices and Bushmaster denied them all. We then gave the Brady Group our statement that we support the BATF licensing requirements to be a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) holder and our support for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) safety programs, and they accepted our statement. We did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business or make any additional demands of our customers. We were emphatic that Bushmaster did not commit any wrong doings.

The attorney for our insurance company was at the settlement conference and informed us that about half of our policy limits had been spent on trial lawyers. It was the insurance company?s position that all of the limit would be spent on this case, and therefore turned the funds over to Bushmaster to use as we saw fit removing the insurance company from the case. Our choice was to continue spending it on trial lawyers or turn it over directly to the victims? families with no funds going to the Brady Group for their legal fees.

We felt the compassionate thing to do was give it to the victims? families, not because we had to but because we wanted to. The Washington DC Brady Group should learn what compassion is really all about!

Bushmaster strongly believes and vigorously supports the rights of citizens to own and use firearms, and the settlement of this case in no way compromises that stand. The Brady Group?s attempt at claiming a victory over firearms manufacturers is a hollow one with no substance. Their attempt to eliminate gun rights of citizens has failed legislatively and will continue to fail with these frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

The above is Bushmaster's press release about the settlement. Unfortunately it's more positive than it should be. While lawyers like to claim that paying a settlement does not constitute admission of wrongdoing, in the court of public opinion it is usually construed as an admission of guilt. It's a public relations victory for the anti-gun lobby, who can trumpet the settlement as evidence that the manufacturer did something wrong. And it's an indication that the insurance company doesn't feel like fighting these worthless lawsuits into their legal grave, which is a decision the insurance company makes on financial grounds rather than politics or PR.

This is a legal version of the prisoner's dilemma. It's better for all gun manufacturers if no one settles, because the anti-gun forces get no reward (since their suits are frivolous). Each time a manufacturer settles, rather than getting a suit dismissed with prejudice, the overall case against such lawsuits is weakened. But for a specific manufacturer in a specific case, paying a settlement is almost all positive; the suit goes away and the manufacturer's insurance company pays the settlement. The damage to the collective group of firearms manufacturers is overbalanced by the benefits to the single manufacturer.

Remember what happened to Smith and Wesson when they reached their agreement with the Clinton Administration? That's one of the costs a manufacturer considers before agreeing to settle -- the risk that the gun owners will view them as having made a deal with the devil. That's why Bushmaster included in their press release that they "did not agree and would not agree to change the way we do business".

But paying out settlements harms the cause of gun rights, even if it is a financially-sound decision for the manufacturer. It would not be inappropriate to let Bushmaster know that they let you down with this settlement.

We need to come back after the elections and pass an immunity bill for the manufacturers, so that the financial threat of a long court fight is removed.

Saying a newly revised Missouri law bars such legal action, a state appeals court refused Tuesday to reinstate the city's lawsuit that sought compensation from gunmakers, distributors and related trade groups for gun-related injuries.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay called the ruling by the three-judge Missouri Court of Appeals disappointing, adding that it was not yet clear whether the city would further appeal.

Tuesday's decision upheld a St. Louis County judge's dismissal last October of the city's 1999 lawsuit. In that ruling, Circuit Judge Emmett O'Brien said such lawsuits would open "a floodgate to additional litigation," and that "issues of both logic and fairness" favored throwing out the case.

Cue the music: "And another one bites the dust..."

An Alameda County Superior Court jury yesterday found that firearm manufacturer Beretta U.S.A. Corp. was not responsible for the tragic 1994 accidental shooting death of a 14-year-old boy. Kenzo Dix was killed when his friend played with a firearm that was left loaded and unlocked by an irresponsible parent. The jury deliberated only five hours before returning a verdict in favor of Beretta U.S.A. Corp., finding the pistol's design did not cause the accident.

And another one bites the dust...

It's worth noting that this has been the third trial for this case. HCI has managed to drag it out since 1995 -- that's nine years over this issue that any reasonable judge would throw out in 5 minutes. How much does it cost to pay a lawyer for 9 years? Do the math. That's what HCI is up to. They don't care if they win, they just want to make it COST.