2 ms·
There's nothing wrong with 50 parties responding to the actions of another party in a perfectly legal manner. > trying to use the court system for the express
by code_duck 15y ago
There's nothing wrong with 50 parties responding to the actions of another party in a perfectly legal manner.
> trying to use the court system for the express purpose of inflicting financial pain on an adversary in order to intimidate them into changing their behaviour
Does that sound unusual to you in some way?
- jerf 15y agoIs that your unmotivated opinion, or are you in some position to make a reasonably firm declaration of how judges are likely to respond to this action? Because you are posting here in a position where you may actually have some small influence on people making decisions that may destroy their companies, or compounded with the error of failing to properly incorporate, destroy their personal finances. Are you sure you don't perhaps want to walk back the certainty of your statement?
- code_duck 15y agoI certainly hope people do not mistake anonymous forum posts from unknown people, who make no attempt to claim or establish credentials, for legal advice. Seems like I said that doing legal things such as filing lawsuits is legal, and companies often use threats of lawsuits or lawsuits to attempt to influence the behavior of other parties. Can you point out where I've gone wrong? It appears to me that the only unusual element in the entire plan is several companies choosing to file papers against the IP troll on the same day. The article says "fight the trolls in court, but a bunch of us should agree to do it at once". You're asking me, how would 50 different judges in different jurisdictions see this... is there some reason they would care or notice?