Comment history ordered to pay Kansas Athletics more than $660,000

1. This was a jury verdict. The judge is not the trier of fact. It is for the jury to decide if the defendant violated the plaintiff's rights.
2. It was incumbent upon the defense attorney to ask for the judge to recuse herself if he believed that there was a conflict of interest (which, under the legal definition, there was not).
3. The defendant was a sophisticated businessman who had actual notice from the university that he was infringing on their copyright. He knows, or had reasonable knowledge, that he was violating the University's copyright.
4. Despite the previous warnings and offers to settle by the university, Larry continued to sell his products.
5. If all of you who are on Larry's side on this, please send me your names and I will be happy to do similar T-shirts with your names (which, by the way, would be actionable).

Bottom line, he knew what he was doing, he had warning to stop and save himself money, he chose not to. I don't feel bad for him.

September 30, 2009 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )