4 ms·

By the same argument, patent trolls are NBD. Except, of course, we know for a fact that lots of people are extorted into paying BS fees because they can't affor

By the same argument, patent trolls are NBD. Except, of course, we know for a fact that lots of people are extorted into paying BS fees because they can't afford to go to court.

ikeboy 9y ago
If you tried to make the case that patent trolls are a big problem because they extort large fees from people, it would be appropriate to talk about cases where people settled and paid "BS fees". If you cite one case where the plaintiff won, and another where they lost in court, you aren't making that case very well because you haven't discussed any actual cases of the alleged harm.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Sorry, in one thread you're suggesting anti-SLAPP laws and in another (this thread) you're apparently claiming that SLAPP doesn't happen. I'm confused.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    I'm not claiming that at all - if you look above I said I acknowledge this is an issue. It's just not relevant to the cases in the OP comment.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      Yes, and as I already pointed out, the root comment states: >>>>>> Personally, I'm concerned that the individual factors of this case (i.e. Gawker being Gawker) will overshadow the principle at stake, which feels a lot more important than a gossip site. We are discussing principles and problems that are larger than just these two cases. That's the entire thesis of the comment that started this thread.
      - ikeboy 9y ago
        It cited another case as representative of the real issue, which wasn't.
        throwawayjava 9y ago
        MJ was offered as an example of a suit that was filed despite the fact that the speech was clearly legally protected, and where the cost of the suit was rather outrageous despite this fact. It establishes a) that people sue maliciously even when they know their suit is baseless; and b) that these suits are none-the-less expensive to defend. It's fairly obvious that (b) is concerning, and also fairly obvious that it takes an actual suit to put a price tag on this problem. That's why the MJ case was presented. But all of this is obvious and explained in the comments above, so this is getting very pedantic, and I don't see a) what point you're trying to make, or b) how that point is at all relevant to the overall thesis of the root comment.

By the same argument, patent trolls are NBD. Except, of course, we know for a fact that lots of people are extorted into paying BS fees because they can't afford to go to court.

ikeboy 9y ago

If you tried to make the case that patent trolls are a big problem because they extort large fees from people, it would be appropriate to talk about cases where people settled and paid "BS fees". If you cite one case where the plaintiff won, and another where they lost in court, you aren't making that case very well because you haven't discussed any actual cases of the alleged harm.

throwawayjava 9y ago
Sorry, in one thread you're suggesting anti-SLAPP laws and in another (this thread) you're apparently claiming that SLAPP doesn't happen. I'm confused.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  I'm not claiming that at all - if you look above I said I acknowledge this is an issue. It's just not relevant to the cases in the OP comment.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    Yes, and as I already pointed out, the root comment states: >>>>>> Personally, I'm concerned that the individual factors of this case (i.e. Gawker being Gawker) will overshadow the principle at stake, which feels a lot more important than a gossip site. We are discussing principles and problems that are larger than just these two cases. That's the entire thesis of the comment that started this thread.
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      It cited another case as representative of the real issue, which wasn't.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        MJ was offered as an example of a suit that was filed despite the fact that the speech was clearly legally protected, and where the cost of the suit was rather outrageous despite this fact. It establishes a) that people sue maliciously even when they know their suit is baseless; and b) that these suits are none-the-less expensive to defend. It's fairly obvious that (b) is concerning, and also fairly obvious that it takes an actual suit to put a price tag on this problem. That's why the MJ case was presented. But all of this is obvious and explained in the comments above, so this is getting very pedantic, and I don't see a) what point you're trying to make, or b) how that point is at all relevant to the overall thesis of the root comment.