12 ms·

That choice of prioritization of targets could reasonably be interpreted as circumstantial evidence of fraud, because it bears strong semblance to how certain c

That choice of prioritization of targets could reasonably be interpreted as circumstantial evidence of fraud, because it bears strong semblance to how certain criminals behave (e.g. people who steal from old ladies). Common sense for honest folk suggests you go after people with money when you have a legitimate claim -- in other words, go after the large businesses whose violation of your rights will look embarrassing under the bright lights of a courtroom. The alleged troll is choosing the opposite strategy.

larrys 13y ago
Agree with the "deep pockets" as standard operating practice in law suits but there are definitely cases where people without deep pockets are sued and there is no fraud just the same. Next, I'm not defending their actions (trolls that is) however there is no supporting evidence in the complaint (that would come out at trial of course) as to what constitutes a "small business" which is interpreted in various ways. "That choice of prioritization of targets" We don't know that other than what the AG has said. There is no list of all the targets so we don't know whether 100% of them are two person businesses (for example) or not. One of the claims that the attorney general makes is that the defendants "can't pay for patent counsel" in other words can't pay (I'm assuming) to even ask a question of an attorney (a simple consult). Of course we all know what is going on here (looks and quacks like a duck) I guess it just bothers me a bit that the attorney general appears to be using language to gain points with voters by appearing to be fighting for the little guy. Because that gains sympathy and political capital. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the trolls also targeted businesses (that while "small") had employees and could easily afford to pay for legal advice (add: even if just randomly, by accident or intentionally "shit at the fan").
- scott_s 13y ago
  If the Attorney General is fighting for "the little guy", then I have no problem if he gains political capital while doing so. The larger point is that the trolls are clearly trying to find companies that are unlikely to fight back, even if they sometimes miss. Yes, that kind of behavior does not mean their must be fraud, but it's an indicator.
- jussij 13y ago
  > I guess it just bothers me a bit that the attorney general appears to be using language to gain points with voters by appearing to be fighting for the little guy. Alternatively he could have been made aware of the problem by reports from lots of little guys and decided to act, since that is his job. Either way the court will decide.

larrys 13y ago

Agree with the "deep pockets" as standard operating practice in law suits but there are definitely cases where people without deep pockets are sued and there is no fraud just the same. Next, I'm not defending their actions (trolls that is) however there is no supporting evidence in the complaint (that would come out at trial of course) as to what constitutes a "small business" which is interpreted in various ways. "That choice of prioritization of targets" We don't know that other than what the AG has said. There is no list of all the targets so we don't know whether 100% of them are two person businesses (for example) or not. One of the claims that the attorney general makes is that the defendants "can't pay for patent counsel" in other words can't pay (I'm assuming) to even ask a question of an attorney (a simple consult). Of course we all know what is going on here (looks and quacks like a duck) I guess it just bothers me a bit that the attorney general appears to be using language to gain points with voters by appearing to be fighting for the little guy. Because that gains sympathy and political capital. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the trolls also targeted businesses (that while "small") had employees and could easily afford to pay for legal advice (add: even if just randomly, by accident or intentionally "shit at the fan").

scott_s 13y ago
If the Attorney General is fighting for "the little guy", then I have no problem if he gains political capital while doing so. The larger point is that the trolls are clearly trying to find companies that are unlikely to fight back, even if they sometimes miss. Yes, that kind of behavior does not mean their must be fraud, but it's an indicator.
jussij 13y ago
> I guess it just bothers me a bit that the attorney general appears to be using language to gain points with voters by appearing to be fighting for the little guy. Alternatively he could have been made aware of the problem by reports from lots of little guys and decided to act, since that is his job. Either way the court will decide.