Tag Archives: ISP Subpoena

Why the US Court of Appeals’ ruling that “an IP address is not enough to identify a defendant” will not deter the copyright trolls.

Unless this case will stop forcing the ISPs to reveal account holders’ identities, this ruling is useless.

Everybody is cheering about the news in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (this is a higher court) “Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Thomas Gonzales,” a lawsuit filed against Gonzalez (originally a Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Doe- (Case No. 3:15-cv-00866) case filed in the Oregon District Court) for the download of the Adam Sandler movie, “The Cobbler.”  In this appeal, the Court of Appeals just ruled that an IP address is not enough to identify the subscriber as being the downloader.

However, my opinion is that unless federal judges will apply this ruling to prevent a copyright holder from forcing the ISP to release the identity of the account holder (which I believe they will NOT), this ruling will be useless.

Cobbler Nevada Appeals Case still does not solve the ISP subpoena issue.
3dman_eu / Pixabay

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

Judges rubber-stamp copyright infringement lawsuits.

For YEARS, I saw literally hundreds of cases fly past the judges who rubber stamped expedited discovery motions forcing the Internet Service Providers (ISPs, e.g., AT&T, Comcast, Verizon) to hand over the names and addresses of the subscriber — why?  Because the assumption was that the account holder was most likely the downloader.

Cobbler Nevada, LLC was only one of MANY copyright holders employing this tactic — sue a “John Doe” downloader having an accused IP address, convince the judge to allow the plaintiff attorney to send a subpoena to the ISP to unmask the identity of the account holder.

Copyright troll attorneys do not state in the complaint that the ACCOUNT HOLDER is the DOWNLOADER.

I remember rummaging through one case after another asking, “Did ANY copyright holder PLEAD that the subscriber was the infringer?”  The fact that the answer was NO made my face contort into a Picasso-styled painting.

Copyright holders like Cobbler Nevada, LLC filed copyright infringement lawsuits which spoke all about the ‘theft’ that occurred when someone connected to a bittorrent network and downloaded a pirated copy of their movie.  They spoke about the harm, and how terrible piracy was for their business.  However, they never wrote that the account holder (the subscriber) was the downloader.  So kudos to the judge for finally making this part of the permanent case law which we will certainly use when defending a client accused of copyright infringement… But wait.

WILL this ruling stop judges from approving expedited discovery? Will this ruling stop judges from issuing that MOST DESTRUCTIVE ORDER which permits the copyright troll to send a subpoena to force the ISP to hand out the name and address of the account holder? I suggest the answer is NO.

Expedited Discovery and ISP subpoenas allow a shakedown scheme to occur.
Perlinator / Pixabay

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

Cobbler Nevada ruling misses the fact that by the time we file a motion to dismiss, it is already TOO LATE.

Looking at Cobbler Nevada‘s pleadings for a moment, failing to identify the account holder as being the infringer (the “pirate” / bittorrent downloader) suggests that a defense attorney such as myself could file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim.

Our argument based on this ruling is that the plaintiff attorney never said in his pleading that the account holder is the one who downloaded the copyrighted film.

By that time, however, the ISP already handed over the name and address of my client, and the plaintiff attorney has already amended the complaint against my client forever memorializing the fact that my client was accused of copyright infringement.

The damage has already been done.

[Further, realistically, if my client downloaded the copyrighted video, we would never have gotten the chance to plead that the plaintiff attorney did not properly state anywhere in the complaint that my client was the downloader.  Why?  Because by the time the ISP handed over my client’s information to a copyright troll like Cobbler Nevada, my client hired me, told me that he did the download, and we settled the claims against him (before his name was forever memorialized on the court’s docket as being the accused defendant).]

Innocent account holders are victims in copyright infringement lawsuits.

But what happens if my client did NOT do the download?  The ISP would have handed over my client’s information to Cobbler Nevada LLC’s plaintiff attorney, I would have sent over a letter of representation to the plaintiff attorney informing him that my client did not do the download and thus we are not settling (I refer to this as the “ignore” route representation, [not because we are ignoring anything, but because we are not paying a settlement if my client did not do the download, and thus there is nothing to do except to explain to the plaintiff attorney that my client — the account holder — was not the downloader]).

The plaintiff attorney will still try to shake down my client and solicit a settlement, regardless of whether he did the download or not.

With some copyright holders (e.g., Malibu Media, LLC and Strike 3 Holdings, LLC), the plaintiff attorney is not even the attorney of the copyright holder (the “copyright troll”), but rather, a local counsel hired to file the documents in a particular federal court.  The local counsel for these specific copyright holders might not even have autonomy to release an innocent account holder without a settlement.  Regardless of guilt, the local counsel might even be under instructions to “name and serve an account holder who is not settling, regardless of whether or not they did the download.”

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

The plaintiff attorney will NAME AND SERVE the innocent account holder (starting the pattern of abuse).

The plaintiff attorney’s logic for naming and serving the subscriber, even if the subscriber is not the downloader is twofold. 

Firstly, once the plaintiff attorney names and serves the account holder, 1) they hope the account holder will hire a settlement factory attorney (a defense attorney who pre-arranges inflated settlement prices with copyright trolls to settle all cases at a premium (so-called “anonymous” settlements) and pay to settle the claims against him, regardless of whether the account holder did the download or not

Thus, the plaintiff attorney will “score” a multi-thousand-dollar settlement from an innocent account holder defendant (sometimes $2,500, sometimes $10,000+). 

An innocent account holder is a victim of the legal system even if he is dismissed.

However, even if the innocent account holder defendant hires an attorney such as myself (or someone like me) and we do NOT settle the claims against my client [because my client — the account holder — did NOT do the download], that plaintiff attorney still reasons that the case will never go to trial.  They figure that they could drag the innocent defendant through the legal system, force him to hire an attorney, force the attorney to file an answer in the case denying the claims, showing up to one or more case management hearings, and force the defense attorney and his innocent client to cooperate while he abuses the legal system (forcing them to submit to searches and temporary seizures of their computers and electronic devices, and forcing the defendant to answer questions under oath.  IF THEN (after discovery) the plaintiff attorney determines that the account holder is not the downloader, he can dismiss the lawsuit against the defendant.

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

Even a dismissal leaves an the account holder violated.

Receiving such a dismissal might sound good as you read this, but remember, the account holder was not the downloader.  His information was shared with a set of attorneys who are doing nothing other than drooling for a settlement

There is an involuntary set of threats thrown against the defendant that he must settle or his name will be exposed to the world as being an accused downloader (guilty or not).  That innocent account holder then has to decide whether to settle the claims against him (pay even though he did not do the download) or defend the claims against him in litigation. 

He then has to pay a defense attorney to represent him. 

Then he has to endure the legal process (which is all new to him, even though the plaintiff attorney has done this hundreds of times to other innocent account holders). 

Then he has to show up at the plaintiff attorney’s office, enter a room with a court reporter, and be put under oath (risking being found guilty of perjury if he makes a misstatement).  The innocent account holder’s testimony is then FORCED FROM HIM (he cannot “plead the fifth amendment” not to testify, because this is a CIVIL case, and the fifth amendment applies only in CRIMINAL cases). 

His computer and cell phones are then searched by someone who is looking to find something “illegal” on his computer. 

Then even after a deposition where the innocent account holder answers truthfully, the plaintiff attorney STILL threatens him that if he does not settle, he will still need to defend himself all the way to trial. 

Then the plaintiff attorney dismisses the innocent account holder (“without prejudice,” meaning that he can be subject to this lawsuit AGAIN).  Yet, with the dismissal, the identity of the innocent account holder is forever linked with the lawsuit, which is forever searchable on Google when a prospective employer (or even his children or grandchildren) search for his name. 

I don’t know about you, but I would still feel violated even if I was found “not guilty” or if I was dismissed by the plaintiff attorney after a deposition.

Have you read enough? Contact me with your questions. > > >

The innocent account holder paid his defense attorney $17,222!

Putting all of this emotion trauma aside, in the Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Thomas Gonzales case, the innocent account holder (Gonzales) PAID HIS ATTORNEY LEGAL FEES OF $17,222 (whereas Cobbler Nevada, LLC likely asked for a settlement of $4,500, and an attorney could have settled the claims against him at the time for $1,750-$2,000).  Gonzales chose to “fight,” and as a result, he paid his attorney $17,000+ …and he was INNOCENT all along.

Cobbler Nevada solution - deny expedited discovery.
qimono / Pixabay

The only solution is to prevent copyright holders from obtaining the account holder’s identity.

So the only way to truly apply this US Court of Appeals ruling is to have judges begin to DENY EXPEDITED DISCOVERY unless the plaintiff attorney explicitly states in the complaint that the account holder is the infringer.  However, in truth, a plaintiff attorney can state this, and plead (in the alternative) that he is not the infringer, or he could lie in his pleadings.  There is no practical consequence in law for falsely accusing a defendant of a civil claim and then later dismissing the claim when he realizes that the innocent account holder did not do the “crime” for which he was accused. Thus, the only way to properly use this ruling is to DENY EXPEDITED DISCOVERIES. DO NOT LET THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS SEND SUBPOENAS TO THE ISPs TO FORCE THEM TO HAND OVER THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER.  Because once this happens, even if that account holder could later hire an attorney to file a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, the whole “settlement extortion scheme” has already taken place and that innocent account holder’s name is already memorialized on the docket as being the accused defendant (guilty or not).

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about what you have read and how it applies to your particular lawsuit, you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your case, or you can send a Text/SMS to 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number)].

The life of a subpoena, and at what point you are no longer anonymous.


Any “copyright troll” bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuit really revolves around the subpoena which moves from the court to the accused John Doe Defendants.  Tracking a subpoena can help an accused defendant understand the timelines of when they can fight, when they can settle, when they can ignore, and whether they are anonymous or not at each step.

A Subpoena is first introduced to the court for approval.

A subpoena is first introduced to the court when the plaintiff attorney files the lawsuit and asks the court for permission to obtain the identities of the various internet users accused of downloading the copyright holder’s movie or copyrighted work.

The Subpoena, once approved by the court, is sent to the ISP.

The federal judge approves the subpoena (usually by rubber stamp), and the subpoenas are then sent to the “abuse” department of the various ISPs (e.g., AT&T U-verse, COX Communications, Comcast, etc.).  These ISPs in receipt of the subpoena are ordered to hand over the accused subscriber’s information to the plaintiff attorney.  They send a notice to the account holder that a subpoena has been received, and that they are under a duty to comply with the subpoena by a certain date unless the account holder files a Motion to Quash the subpoena before the arbitrary deadline they set (usually the deadline is 30 days from the notice sent to the subscriber).

The ISP forwards the Subpoena to the accused account holder giving him a chance to file an objection with the court.

You (the account holder) receive the notice containing the subpoena, and you learn that you are implicated as a “John Doe” (an unnamed defendant) in the Copyright Holder Corporate Entity v. Does lawsuit.  Here, you learn that you can supposedly stop the ISP from handing out your information to the plaintiff attorney by filing an objection with the court, a.k.a. a “Motion to Quash.” At this point, you are still anonymous.

The ISP complies with the Subpoena and hands over your contact information to the plaintiff attorney.

Assuming you do not file the Motion to Quash (there are many articles on this website explaining why you might not do so), the 30-day deadline set by your ISP will lapse, and your ISP will comply with the subpoena.  They turn over your information to the PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (but not to the court or anyone else). You are still anonymous.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

The exact moment your anonymity expires.

At this point, the life of the subpoena is over, as it has served its purpose and the plaintiff attorney is in receipt of your contact information (and whatever other information your ISP was forced to hand over to it).  At this point, you are a “John Doe” defendant in the lawsuit, and only your plaintiff attorney knows your real identity. YOU ARE STILL ANONYMOUS at this point (as to the court and the world, as the plaintiff attorney is not going to share your information unless he decides to name and serve you as a defendant in the lawsuit).

Your anonymity expires once the plaintiff attorney realizes that he or she cannot get a settlement from you, and based on their evidence that you are the downloader of their client’s copyrighted movie, they file an amended complaint with the court with your name as a defendant, and they serve you with a copy of the complaint.  At this point, you have been “named and served,” and you are no longer anonymous. At this point, you need to decide whether it makes more sense to stand and defend against the claims against you (consider the attorney fees issue), or to negotiate a settlement and amicably step away from the lawsuit.

NOTE: If you choose to fight, be aware of Prof. Matthew Sag’s paper entitled “Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling,” and the considerations surrounding using what are otherwise “valid” defenses to copyright infringement which likely DO apply to your case.

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about your lawsuit and options on how to proceed, you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your case, or you can call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

ISP Subpoena Timeline & Anonymity Timeline

Is it ‘coincidence’ early bittorrent cases were porn-based?

Once again, in trying to answer the question of “Who cares if I was ‘seen’ downloading?  Doesn’t everyone use bittorrent anyway? Why is this illegal?” in the ME2 Productions Lawsuit Q&A article posted last night (this is a difficult question to answer because the answer is ‘yes, everyone does it, but it is still illegal’) I ended up on a tangent which deserved it’s own article, which I posted below.

If you are looking for the juicy conspiratorial content, skip down to the last paragraph after the reference to ‘The boot of government crushes the skull of its citizen’ when it comes to encryption and anonymity, which caused me to come to a jarring conclusion that perhaps it was the plan of our ‘copyright masters’ that all of the adult film bittorent-based cases from 2010-2016 were planned to be a precursor to the growing number of movie cases we are seeing today.


In our modern society (mid-1990’s- ~2020), especially with the younger generation, even we Gen X’ers (born in the 1960’s and 1970’s) found ourselves with “Peer-To-Peer” technology which showed up in our dorm rooms and offices in the mid-1990’s.  File sharing sites such as eDonkey, Morpheus, LimeWire, Grokster, Napster were all names common to the early file sharers, and the ability to share music and pictures was a pretty cool concept (especially for those who remember 300 baud and then 9600 baud modems before DSL, Cablemodem, or even DISH Network was made available to residential ISP customers).  Later, as bittorrent become popular and Napster and Grokster got sued, software platforms that used bittorrent (e.g., uTorrent, Azureus/Vuze, etc.) became more popular.  Sites like The Pirate Bay, KickAssTorrents, and many others who have now shut their doors provided unlicensed copyrighted material to hundreds and thousands of students.


At the time, while downloading copyrighted movies at the time were just as illegal as it is now, nobody had the thought or the desire to monitor the bittorrent networks.  Today with the copyright holders and movie producers throwing out recycled garbage and politically motivated comedies, much of what is out there is junk and many people no longer spend the few dollars or the time to view the movies in the theater.  So they turned to Netflix, who delivered recent movies to their door each day via a little red envelope which gave so many people so much pleasure.  But then even Netflix got greedy, and they reduced their selection of available films, increased their prices and switched to their streaming platform.  Many people turned to Redbox, the kiosks in their local stores as a last resort replacement for Netflix.  But then when Redbox did not keep current as the movies came out and their selection dwindled, many people turned to piracy.


Piracy came about because the companies who formerly had us as committed customers (I know I used to go to the movies at least once/week) lost our trust and our dollar.  Then Netflix lost our dime to Amazon Prime (which for the moment in my opinion provides better content than even Netflix, and it provides the free shipping that we all love).  Sure, we are always a season or so behind the TV viewers, but being able to binge-watch shows from our living rooms at night to get the full theater experience is something that even movie theaters could not provide in a two-hour movie, and quite frankly, it is nice to do so in the privacy of our own homes without the annoying advertisements.

But just as there is Netflix, Amazon, and legal ways to pay for slightly dated content, some people want the most up to date movie, or the most up to date show.  Not willing to pay for a movie ticket or purchase the video outright, they look for other sources to view the film, the movie, or the TV show.  At the time I am writing this article (early 2017), TV networks have not realized that “Cable TV is dead” and that many have ‘cut the cords’ years ago because of their obscene prices.  Personally, I would still pay a few bucks to be able to access Cable TV content (e.g., to see the current seasons of shows as they come out), but I am unwilling to pay the high costs these TV companies (e.g., HBO GO, etc.) charge to access their content online.  For some reason, they still think they can charge us “Cable TV” prices when there are such cheaper alternatives available.  [Second thought, perhaps Hulu provides current TV shows, but they have done such a pitiful job in marketing even I *who lives and breathes in this industry* have no idea what service they are providing these days, and last I checked, I was unwilling to pay their $9.99/month or whatever subscription when Netflix and/or Amazon provided better content and value for less.]

When Hulu did have our attention (when it was free), viewers were willing to watch paid ads in return for the free content.  However, this was likely not profitable for them, and they turned to a per month subscription model.  I haven’t followed them since them because they lost me as a betrayed customer, and I am happy with my Amazon subscription.

However, after the failures of the movie theaters, the cable and TV providers, the Netflix providers, and then the Hulu providers, there grew a large segment of the population who were never taught nor do they understand or care that movies and shows are not free, and that they cost money to produce.  These individuals grew up with the understanding that “ads will pay for the cost of our watching,” but as ad-supported content dwindled, they blamed the TV and Cable companies for not providing the content they desired at a cost they were willing to pay.  As a result, a large segment of our population has turned and will continue to readily turn to piracy when the other alternatives do not provide them access to the content (e.g., “current” TV shows) they would otherwise pay for.  Thus, without thinking, this segment pirates the film or the TV show using bittorrent or Popcorn Time thinking that nobody will see them.  The only difference is that they copyright holders have caught up with technology and they are able to track those who use bittorrent, and thus these individuals get sued.

So yes, copyright infringement is something that is ‘socially acceptable’ because so many people do it.  But it is still illegal, and as technology advances and as governments find more and more creative ways to serve their lobbyist masters in return for favors, free trips, and donations to their PACs / re-election funds], copyright holders continue to grow in their appetite to sue those who get caught downloading the copyrighted films.

And with hindsight, and after reading the

‘The boot of government crushes the skull of its citizen’ when it comes to encryption and anonymity,

*WASN’T IT CONVENIENT AND COINCIDENTAL* that the set of cases that were brought between 2010-2016 to blaze the trail in order to allow current movie companies to sue downloads WERE PORNOGRAPHY / ADULT FILM CASES?

That’s a very deep concept which requires some reflection and thought in order to grasp the enormity of it. It makes you wonder whether it was planned that the MPAA / RIAA would sit back and let the porn cases blaze through the courts (because what person accused of downloading pornography would make noise defending himself in court when as a result of the legal battle — just by being named and served as a defendant, even if he won the case and was vindicated (namely, that he was found to have never downloaded the adult films in the first place), — his name and reputation forever would be tarnished by being associated with someone who was accused and sued of downloading and stealing copyrighted pornographic content without a license, only to have legitimate movie companies step in their place and file most of the copyright infringement cases we see now.

For years we have been seeing common thread between the cases filed in the federal district courts across the US.  Similar names and German companies, such as Guardaley, IPP, and other common entities kept creeping up behind the scenes (until recently, I thought the shadow entity was Voltage Pictures, Inc.).  But when those same entities popped up for the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC lawsuits (based on a legitimate movie), I did not make any connections, and I remained oblivious to the idea that perhaps the same entities behind the pornography lawsuits (e.g., Patrick Collins, K-Beeck, NuCorp, Malibu Media, LLC — essentially, the former set of “Keith Lipscomb” lawsuits) were also behind the movie-based lawsuits.

Conspiracy-level thinking at this point, yes.  It would be a huge scandal if one set of masters planned the pornography-based bittorrent ‘copyright troll’ lawsuits for the purpose of later giving credibility to real-movie lawsuits when they stepped in place of the porn lawsuits and made the same filings.  I am made angry just thinking about this, and quite frankly, I don’t want to connect the dots because I do not want to notice that perhaps the same entities behind the Dallas Buyers Club, LLC movies were the same entities behind the Patrick Collins… Malibu Media, LLC cases. That would be just too horrible.

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Siemens Software Case IS a Bittorrent Case

This is a follow-up article to the “What to do about the Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does case (TX)” article I wrote last week.

I did a bit more digging into the Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and I learned more about their software, and more about where some of the John Doe defendants are coming from.  What I also learned was that this is not the first time they have sued defendants for copyright infringement.

*UPDATE* As of 1/2019, Siemens PLM has filed their 6th wave of lawsuits, this one entitled Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:19-cv-00129), also filed in the Texas Southern District Court.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

The Siemens Product Lifecycle Management (“PLM”) software being sued over is known as the Siemens NX software.

According to Wikipedia, “NX, formerly known as NX Unigraphics or usually just UG, is an advanced high-end CAD/CAM/CAE software package originally developed by Unigraphics, but since 2007 by Siemens PLM Software… NX is a direct competitor to TopSolid, CATIA, Creo, Autodesk Inventor, and SolidWorks.”

The Pirate Bay shows 9 torrent files for “Siemens NX” software (below).

062016 Siemens PLM NX

Surprisingly, for version 9, there are only 3 seeders (uploaders).  For all others, there is only one seeder.  For a program that takes on average 1GB-5.7GB to download, a download like this could take forever to complete.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Looking at version 10 (the current stable release; version 11.2 is probably a fake), there is one seeder (uploader) and one leecher (downloader).  See attached.

062016 Siemens PLM NX 10

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

As dry as this post may be, the point is that my suspicions were correct — even though the bittorrent file provides a serial number (probably a valid, but likely an OLD registration code), and even though there is an “activator” which modifies or “cracks” the pirated file to allow the software to accept the old serial number [it likely does this by blocking the “authentication” feature when the software checks with the server to verify the registration key], the software looks to the user as if he has successfully registered the software.

However, through the CASUAL USE of the software, the activator software is likely not persistent, which means that after the software is registered using the old key, it restores the software’s executable (.exe) file to its original state.  Then, when using the software, it connects to Siemens’ servers for whatever purpose (to download an update, to check for new features, etc.), and this is how their copyright enforcement / IT department can identify the IP address of the individual using a pirated copy of the software.

In sum, what this means is that Robert Riddle (more recently, attorneys Andrew Bluebond, and now James Quail) and the Siemens copyright holder likely knows how long the software has been in use, and which IP addresses have been using an old or invalid serial number.  This will likely be a consideration when discussing the matter with the plaintiff attorneys on behalf of my clients.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

*2019 UPDATE* Usually as the Siemens PLM cases advance from one wave to the next, I update these articles with the most recent case number and “motion to quash” due date given to the subscriber by the ISP.  However, the 2019 case is too new, and I do not yet have an update for the Siemens PLM v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:19-cv-00129) 1/2019 filed case.  Thus, please read what I have written below and apply it to the subpoena you received from your ISP.

*2018 UPDATE* What all this means for you — 1) October 5th, 2018 appears to be the date that Charter Communications will be ordered to hand over the names and addresses of the 107 accused John Doe defendants, so pay attention to the lifecycle of your lawsuit, and when you are no longer anonymous.  Also be sure to read about motions to quash so that you will understand whether you will want to stop your ISP from handing over your ISP, as most defendants in this most recent case do not appear to live in Texas. 2) If you have been using the software, they likely know more details than you would like as to what you have been doing with it.  3) Speak to an attorney (me, or anyone else) about what options you have to get out of this, whether you were the downloader, the purchaser (of a pirated copy of the software), or whether you have absolutely no idea why you have been implicated as being one of the John Doe defendants in this case.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >


How an attorney should handle a Siemens PLM Software, Inc. lawsuit, on 1/11/2017.

Siemens PLM NX-based lawsuits – converting accused engineers into loyal customers, on 1/9/2017.

Software Developers are now tracking piracy through the USE of downloaded software, on 9/9/2016.

Siemens Software Case IS a Bittorrent Case, on 6/20/2016.

What to do about the Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does case (TX), on 1/16/2016.

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.