4 ms·

Someone with money and lawyers needs to sue the state of Texas for allowing a father and son duo to practice in such a conflict of interest fashion. This is a c

Someone with money and lawyers needs to sue the state of Texas for allowing a father and son duo to practice in such a conflict of interest fashion. This is a clear cut case of corruption.

HillaryBriss 10y ago
Isn't this the federal court system? Not sure: is Texas even able to do anything about this?
djrogers 10y ago
I'm not sure where exactly this assertion stands - Judge Davis retires last year, and in 2011 when Lodsys was represented by his son's firm, their cases were always assigned to the other district judge (Gilsap I believe?) due to the conflict of interest. It's sensational and scummy sounding, so it really fits the narrative of the evil patent trolls (a narrative I wholeheartedly support), I don't see any reason to believe it's true.
- dingo_bat 10y ago
  Ah! I didn't know that! I was going on what the guy in the video said.
DannyBee 10y ago
I'm not even sure where to begin with this :) First, you can't sue a state without their permission, they have sovereign immunity. Second, you would have no standing unless you were directly affected Third, outside of violating non-binding legal ethics rules, it's not clear what law you think this somehow violates. The state can pretty much do whatever it wants here. Plus, all of this is federal anyway, so suing the state of texas would accomplish nothing. Outside of random statutes, your best bet would probably be due process violations, but ...
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  A lawsuit might not be appropriate, but there is a separate 'right to petition the government' for that.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    Sure. However, note the supreme court has not, AFAIK, held a right to sue in general: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/right-to-sue http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/right-to-sue They have essentially grounded these claims in due process violations, etc, and then found a right to file those lawsuits. Not a right to sue for anything. When they have tried to find rights in the right to petition (and i will grant that historically, it included a right to sue), it has been cases where someone is directly trying to affect a constitutional right. Also nobody has to give a damn about what you say: "Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."
- sangnoir 10y ago
  States' rights, Fuck yeah!
- mobilefriendly 10y ago
  Correct, this situation is 100% a creature of Congress and several Administrations, the actual state of Texas has nothing to do with it.
narrator 10y ago
Suing the state to stop patent lawsuits is not going to work. Hiring an army of lobbyists and giving campaign donations liberally might work though.
- tripzilch 10y ago
  You're suggesting to use one systemic corruption to fight the other! That might solve the one problem in the short term (maybe), but legitimizing that sort of strategy for affecting change just means that in the end the most corruptest one with the biggest army of lobbyists and campaign donations is going to call the shots. Hey it's your country, but maybe just think about that for a second.

Someone with money and lawyers needs to sue the state of Texas for allowing a father and son duo to practice in such a conflict of interest fashion. This is a clear cut case of corruption.

HillaryBriss 10y ago

Isn't this the federal court system? Not sure: is Texas even able to do anything about this?

djrogers 10y ago

I'm not sure where exactly this assertion stands - Judge Davis retires last year, and in 2011 when Lodsys was represented by his son's firm, their cases were always assigned to the other district judge (Gilsap I believe?) due to the conflict of interest. It's sensational and scummy sounding, so it really fits the narrative of the evil patent trolls (a narrative I wholeheartedly support), I don't see any reason to believe it's true.

dingo_bat 10y ago
Ah! I didn't know that! I was going on what the guy in the video said.

DannyBee 10y ago

I'm not even sure where to begin with this :) First, you can't sue a state without their permission, they have sovereign immunity. Second, you would have no standing unless you were directly affected Third, outside of violating non-binding legal ethics rules, it's not clear what law you think this somehow violates. The state can pretty much do whatever it wants here. Plus, all of this is federal anyway, so suing the state of texas would accomplish nothing. Outside of random statutes, your best bet would probably be due process violations, but ...

MichaelBurge 10y ago
A lawsuit might not be appropriate, but there is a separate 'right to petition the government' for that.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  Sure. However, note the supreme court has not, AFAIK, held a right to sue in general: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/right-to-sue http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/right-to-sue They have essentially grounded these claims in due process violations, etc, and then found a right to file those lawsuits. Not a right to sue for anything. When they have tried to find rights in the right to petition (and i will grant that historically, it included a right to sue), it has been cases where someone is directly trying to affect a constitutional right. Also nobody has to give a damn about what you say: "Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues."
sangnoir 10y ago
States' rights, Fuck yeah!
mobilefriendly 10y ago
Correct, this situation is 100% a creature of Congress and several Administrations, the actual state of Texas has nothing to do with it.

narrator 10y ago

Suing the state to stop patent lawsuits is not going to work. Hiring an army of lobbyists and giving campaign donations liberally might work though.

tripzilch 10y ago
You're suggesting to use one systemic corruption to fight the other! That might solve the one problem in the short term (maybe), but legitimizing that sort of strategy for affecting change just means that in the end the most corruptest one with the biggest army of lobbyists and campaign donations is going to call the shots. Hey it's your country, but maybe just think about that for a second.