Against deceitful lawyers/plaintiffs. (I agree with you). When a federal judge allows it to visibly boil over into obviousness, as in this case, should indicate how lopsided of a case it really is.
Ignoring the Star Trek references, the judge established a large number of "findings of fact", where specific factual elements and legal repercussions were identified or quantified. This is a very compelling approach for appellate/higher courts, and should suggest the intent of resiliency in the language by the judge.
A good appellate lawyer would likely argue that the judge's over-the-top reaction, along with his written commentary showing clear disdain for the business model of the plaintiffs and the attorneys, shows that the judge was unfairly biased against them from the outset of the case. I don't know if they would ultimately prevail on appeal, but the judge certainly opened the door for it.
I'm curious, what can they really appeal here? It seems like the biggest impact of the ruling is the circulation of the ruling to other jurisdictions and the referral of the matter to local / federal authorities. Is that something that is immediate and an appeal can only reduce the monetary finding, or is the whole order in stasis if they appeal?
Anyone can refer any matter to local or federal authorities, so that cannot be appealed, but the monetary judgement may be subject to appeal. A large portion of the basis for the findings of fact and punishments seems to pertain to conduct that simply isn't illegal. Statements like the following undermine the judge's impartiality:
"So now, copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to plunder the citizenry. "
It is quite obvious that this is the conduct that the judge intends to punish through this order, but that conduct is entirely legal under current law. So are many of the other things the judge complains about, including the use of boilerplate language in the lawsuits, which is routinely done.
This judge disliked the plaintiffs from the outset and went combing through their conduct to find any way he could to nail them. Judges are not supposed to decide who they do or don't like in a case, then craft an outcome based upon those personal feelings. But that is exactly what happened here. Popular rulings aren't always legally sound.
It seems rather silly to enrage a judge via misconduct during the case and then claim the judge's indignation is a form of bias. Judge Wright wasn't mad at them at the start of the case. Rather, he became angry after seeing how they conducted themselves before him.
That reminds me of the story of the child who murders his parents only to beg the court for mercy because he is an orphan.
