I started re-reading IO Group v. Does 1-244 court filings in order to document numerous deceptions by IO Group’s council, Mr. Sperlein. To my astonishment, I immediately discovered a major discrepancy. Not in the middle of the list, but at the very top: Doe #1.
Document 1, Complaint. Filed 08/18/10. Page 6:
22. Defendant Doe 1, without authorization, reproduced Plaintiff’s registered work Full Access (U.S. registration No. PA 1-670-544) and distributed it on May 5, 2010 from the IP address 220.127.116.11.
The same IP and date were listed in the subpoena to AT&T.
Document 41, First Amended Complaint. Filed 05/24/11. Page 9:
35. At some time prior to April 9, 2010, Defendant MARIUSZ PRALAT, without authorization, reproduced Plaintiff’s registered work Breakers by downloading the digital file identified as Hash 23025B1F57308A2C154A4E78CD1CC36F from various eDonkey peers. Pralat placed the file in his “share folder” making it available for immediate, as well as, future downloading by other eDonkey2000 peers including the remaining Defendants. On April 9, 2010 at 13:27:36 GMT, Plaintiff’s investigators documented that an eDonkey peer offered Hash 23025B1F57308A2C154A4E78CD1CC36F for other eDonkey peers to download. Plaintiff’s investigators documented that the eDonkey peer connected to the Internet using the AT&T controlled ip address 18.104.22.168. AT&T later identified Mariusz Pralat as the subscriber to whom it had assigned the ip address at that date and time. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the file 23025B1F57308A2C154A4E78CD1CC36F remained in Pralat’s share folder after Plaintiff’s investigators initially recorded it, thereby making it available for the remaining Defendants and other peers to download.
WTF? Same IP address, same Doe #1. Why the hell are the titles different? Why are the dates different by almost a month? It is not likely that a dynamic IP stays unchanged for such a long period of time. Doesn’t it suggest that the entire claim is bogus? Does not it suggest that titles and times were arbitrarily assigned, IPs were semi-randomly generated and there was no actual infringement? First I did not believe in the honeypot theory, but now I’m giving it a second thought.
Sperlein will probably try to claim that it was a mistake, a typo. Hogwash. When the amended complaint was filed, I was somehow puzzled by the defendants naming pattern: Doe #1, then a gap, and then closely located Does from 26 to 36. If you look at the complaint, Does are arranged by movie title, so assigning “Breakers” to Doe #1 does not make any sense, and no way it could happen because of an honest mistake. Something is really, really wrong.
I’ll keep digging.