5 ms·

Is that really what they're doing though? The reason I ask is that their attempt to get discovery on the Apple license suggests that they don't know what the l

Is that really what they're doing though? The reason I ask is that their attempt to get discovery on the Apple license suggests that they don't know what the license covered (remember it was taken out not with Lodsys but with a previous patent holder). If that's genuinely the position then they don't know what sort of case they've got. At the very best it would seem that they are hoping that there is enough wiggle room in the license to give them something but the request points to this being, at least to some degree, a punt as much as a clever legal move. But to me what this really looks like is what we suspected it was all along - a legal shakedown of small, vulnerable developers without the finances or expertise to fight it. Lodsys may or may not have a water tight legal case but from what we're seeing here they're certainly not geared up for a hardcore legal fight rooted in a solid basic case. Instead what they're doing seems to be throwing everything they can at it regardless of merit and hoping that something sticks. In some situations that's a perfectly reasonable strategy - essentially if you're trying just to delay things and rack up costs for the other side to make settling look appealing - but against Apple who have enough money to fight this from pocket change and a vested interest not just in winning but in crushing you to put anyone else off the idea of ever trying this sort of thing again?

raganwald 15y ago
Well obviously I’m speculating out of my ASSets, but legal discovery goes beyond “show us the contract.” They get to grill the lawyers and managers who drafted the contracts, review emails written about the contracts, and so forth. they ought to get a look at just about everything that might come up as evidence in a suit. So I don’t know for sure whether they know what’s in the contract, but I would not say that just because they’re asking for discovery, therefore they have no idea what the contract says.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  That's true but at the very least it suggests a weakness in what they have in place at the moment. And what's written in the contract certainly can't be contradicted by anything before it. At best they're going to be able to fill in the gaps. EDIT: I am also not a lawyer but this seems to be relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule Essentially where something exists in the contract in writing it can't be amended or contradicted by any other source. What other material can be used for is to prove / disprove validity, provide clarification around ambiguity and so on. That would seem to suggest that Lodsys at the very least aren't confident that the contract as written completely supports their case.

raganwald 15y ago

Well obviously I’m speculating out of my ASSets, but legal discovery goes beyond “show us the contract.” They get to grill the lawyers and managers who drafted the contracts, review emails written about the contracts, and so forth. they ought to get a look at just about everything that might come up as evidence in a suit. So I don’t know for sure whether they know what’s in the contract, but I would not say that just because they’re asking for discovery, therefore they have no idea what the contract says.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
That's true but at the very least it suggests a weakness in what they have in place at the moment. And what's written in the contract certainly can't be contradicted by anything before it. At best they're going to be able to fill in the gaps. EDIT: I am also not a lawyer but this seems to be relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule Essentially where something exists in the contract in writing it can't be amended or contradicted by any other source. What other material can be used for is to prove / disprove validity, provide clarification around ambiguity and so on. That would seem to suggest that Lodsys at the very least aren't confident that the contract as written completely supports their case.