Prior related thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1047500 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1047500. This answer is pretty unorthodox by the normally

Prior related thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1047500 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1047500. This answer is pretty unorthodox by the normally staid standards of federal court practice and seems aimed as much as anything at generating sensationalism for the defendants' side of the case. I also note that the background of the lead attorney defending South Butt, Albert S. Watkins, is varied and colorful but does not include any mention of trademark expertise (http://www.kwmwlaw.com/albert-watkins http://www.kwmwlaw.com/albert-watkins). A reading of this answer suggests that the defense case may be pretty thin, and I would therefore speculate that the main strategy is to try to force North Face through extraneous means (i.e., by generating unending bad publicity) into dropping or settling the suit.