4 ms·

It's a US district court, as in Federal court, so no, you can't just choose not to show up if you are filed against. Unless, of course, you don't want to do bu

It's a US district court, as in Federal court, so no, you can't just choose not to show up if you are filed against. Unless, of course, you don't want to do business in the US, or have any assets here.

eksith 14y ago
I'm reminded of the time Amazon stopped its associates program with Connecticut and Colorado. Granted, that was over taxes, but I can see how it will still cause enough of a fuss to make people look at this more closely. Most people have no concept of software patents, until a company they know or do business with is suddenly affected. So a boycott or even a threatened boycott with Texas may get a lot of attention.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  My California account was temporarily stopped as well.
lake_rogue 14y ago
Can another tactic be employed in this battle against patent trolls?... Public education programs targeted to residents of East Texas. Documentaries, billboards, sophisticated advertising campaigns, unsophisticated advertising campaigns on 7-11 cups, etc. Whatever communicates to the residents. i.e. don't say "you hillbillies are stupid pawns", but use a marketing campaign that speaks to the residents. For example "people claiming to hold patents are destroying freedom -- they're like people trying to take away all your gun rights". Whatever works to enlighten. This tactic is not intended to be a silver bullet, but part of a no holds barred effort to battle this ridiculous patent nonsense. Weaken troll's ability to exploit the Eastern District of Texas (while more directed efforts to solve this problem continue).
- talmand 14y ago
  Won't work, most people have no concept of their freedoms and how they are threatened. They typically don't realize the problem until the freedom is already taken from them. To get through in an immediate way you have to educate them on how much it costs them in monetary terms. For example, often it is cited that juries give ridiculous amounts at trial because it "isn't their money". I fully believe that many think this way. But if the affected party are organizations that receive money from the public for their services in return, in the end it is their money they are giving away.

eksith 14y ago

I'm reminded of the time Amazon stopped its associates program with Connecticut and Colorado. Granted, that was over taxes, but I can see how it will still cause enough of a fuss to make people look at this more closely. Most people have no concept of software patents, until a company they know or do business with is suddenly affected. So a boycott or even a threatened boycott with Texas may get a lot of attention.

hkmurakami 14y ago
My California account was temporarily stopped as well.

lake_rogue 14y ago

Can another tactic be employed in this battle against patent trolls?... Public education programs targeted to residents of East Texas. Documentaries, billboards, sophisticated advertising campaigns, unsophisticated advertising campaigns on 7-11 cups, etc. Whatever communicates to the residents. i.e. don't say "you hillbillies are stupid pawns", but use a marketing campaign that speaks to the residents. For example "people claiming to hold patents are destroying freedom -- they're like people trying to take away all your gun rights". Whatever works to enlighten. This tactic is not intended to be a silver bullet, but part of a no holds barred effort to battle this ridiculous patent nonsense. Weaken troll's ability to exploit the Eastern District of Texas (while more directed efforts to solve this problem continue).

talmand 14y ago
Won't work, most people have no concept of their freedoms and how they are threatened. They typically don't realize the problem until the freedom is already taken from them. To get through in an immediate way you have to educate them on how much it costs them in monetary terms. For example, often it is cited that juries give ridiculous amounts at trial because it "isn't their money". I fully believe that many think this way. But if the affected party are organizations that receive money from the public for their services in return, in the end it is their money they are giving away.