4 ms·

> Why hasn't anyone addressed the probable criminal activity going on with these handful of judges in this one district of Texas? ... My hypothesis is there's a

by dctoedt 13y ago

> Why hasn't anyone addressed the probable criminal activity going on with these handful of judges in this one district of Texas? ... My hypothesis is there's a payoff racket going on. There's a multi level system setup with a few insiders who know how to pay off the local judges to dismiss certain cases. Careful there. Unless you've got more than a hypothesis, what you're saying borders on the libelous. (Not that a federal district judge would deign to notice. The judges are public figures, so you have enhanced protection under the First Amendment, but making a statement like this, without evidence to support it, might qualify as the type of "malice" that can pierce the First Amendment protection.) The judge is constrained by long-established rules. Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal courts to actual cases and controversies. If the parties to a lawsuit settle the case, then that case is moot, and with very limited exceptions, the judge is automatically stripped of pretty much all authority in the matter. (You wouldn't want it any other way, given that Article III judges are appointed, not elected, and for life.) The battle isn't necessarily over. Apple might well be able to make a case on appeal that it should be allowed to continue to litigate against Lodsys, on grounds that the same issue is likely to come up again and be settled again, thereby evading judicial review. That's a standard exception to the mootness doctrine [0], and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is likely to give it serious consideration. Disclosure: I'm a Texan; a lawyer, also admitted in California; and a patent litigator in a previous life. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness#Capable_of_repetition.2C_yet_evading_review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness#Capable_of_repetition....

sillysaurus2 13y ago
This is the definition of "What the fuck." Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum, just because he's talking about a judge? He didn't threaten anybody.
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum? He didn't threaten anybody. Like it or not, libel laws apply on-line as much as anywhere. As just one example, in 2006 a Florida woman won an $11 million verdict against a Louisiana woman who had called her a crook, a con artist, and a fraud in an on-line forum [1]. Do a Google search for "libel on-line" and you'll see lots of ads for lawyers hoping to be hired to bring a lawsuit for libel. Incidentally, accusations like those of the GP are known as "libel per se." [2] Another thing to consider: If you make an arguably-libelous statement on-line about a foreign citizen, that person might sue you in a "libel tourism" destination such as the UK, which until earlier this year was (and to a certain extent still is) much more friendly to libel plaintiffs than is the U.S. (Fortunately for U.S. citizens, U.S. law severely limits the enforceability in U.S. courts of a foreign libel-tourism judgment [3].) [1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-intern... [2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel+per+se http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel+per+se [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#United_States
  - geuis 13y ago
    Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form. This is not even close to what I'm doing. I look at the world scientifically. Hence a hypothesis and not a theory. I am asking a question and don't have hard evidence one way or the other. I have a suspicion, which is where hypothesises get started. This is not libel, it's fact finding. Were I to call you a prevaricating snake that took bribes on your last 6 cases and were rogering the judge during tea time, then that would be libel. But I am not saying that about you because it's not true, hopefully. I'm the first to admit I'm not a lawyer and I'm quite happy about that. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant or uneducated about things though. I also learn something new each day and am happy to be proven wrong. Cheers.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      "Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form." Actually, in the US, it doesn't have to intend to cause damage to be libel (it does have to damage reputation), unless it is a public figure of some sort (in which case it requires what is known as "New York Times malice"). If you libel'd a private figure, negligently, you'd likely still be liable, though damages would likely be limited to actual harm.
    - subway 13y ago
      Libel applies when a judge and/or jury decides it applies, regardless of your opinion on the meaning of any word.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - stephencanon 13y ago
      > Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form. Look up "libel per se". Certain types of false statements are so clearly damaging that there is no requirement of malicious intent for uttering them to constitute libel. Falsely accusing someone of committing a crime, for example.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- legalparanoia 13y ago
  >Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum, just because he's talking about a judge? annoying people whose career is in the application of state force is not a wise thing to do
option_greek 13y ago
"The judge is constrained by long-established rules. Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal courts to actual cases and controversies." Even if that was the case, assuming nothing bad is going on, there has to be a reason all these cases end up there. It's too frequent to be a coincidence.
- ngoldbaum 13y ago
  The wikipedia article for the Eastern district Federal court gives a good summary without appealing to anything nefarious: Most recently, the Eastern District of Texas has seen an increase in the number of cases filed relating to patent infringement. This District has experienced an increase in the number of patent cases filed and tried, notably in the courts of Judge T. John Ward in the Marshall Division, Judge Leonard Davis in the Tyler Division, and Judge David Folsom in the Texarkana Division. Perhaps because the district has a set of local rules for patent cases and relatively fast trial settings, patent plaintiffs have flocked to this small venue. In addition the proximity to larger cities (such as Dallas and Houston) along with an aging jury pool interested in protecting property rights, may attract patent cases to Marshall, Tyler, and Texarkana. [1] Basically, the judges tend to be friendly to plaintiffs (as is their right as duly appointed federal judges) and the jury pool tend to be in favor of patents and strong property rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_fo...
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    You... managed to completely ignore the 'fast trial settings' in your TL;DR. From the perspective of a law firm, this saves an incredible amount of time and money.
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > Even if that was the case, assuming nothing bad is going on, there has to be a reason all these cases end up there. It's too frequent to be a coincidence. Fifteen-plus years ago the Eastern District of Texas developed a reputation as a good place to litigate patent cases because at the time it was a fast docket (not so much any more, because of all the patent cases being filed there) and the judges there have come to know patent law pretty well, which is welcomed by lawyers for both sides. In a 2010 article, Stanford law professor Mark Lemley, who is known for his careful statistical analysis of patent cases (and is cited amazingly often by the Supreme Court), noted that the win rate for patent owners in the Eastern District was 40% [1]. In a 2013 article, Lemley concluded that "... the patent sophistication of the jury pool had no statistically significant effect on trial outcomes." [2] [1] http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/Lemley.pdf http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/Lemley.pdf [2] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2217690 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2217690, page 177, text accompanying note 24.
mistercow 13y ago
Don't terms like "probable" and "my hypothesis" pretty obviously make this a statement of opinion, and therefore immune to libel claims?
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > Don't terms like "probable" and "my hypothesis" pretty obviously make this a statement of opinion, and therefore immune to libel claims? Quite possibly. But who wants to spend the legal fees to test that? Pragmatically, it's better to stay reasonably far away from the edge of that particular cliff, lest one be propelled over the edge by a random gust of wind (or a well-placed push).
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    The FUD you're spreading here relies on apples to oranges comparisons, where the apples are public officials working in thee public capacity, and the oranges are private citizens. Before you go any further, I challenge you to find actual apples to apples examples that can support your remarkably menacing position.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    I don't think that's a healthy attitude, especially when we're talking about the possibility of corruption. If we all take that "pragmatic" view, what will actually prevent corruption?
    - dctoedt 13y ago
      > If we all take that "pragmatic" view, what will actually prevent corruption? Journalists. They know that you avoid libel by stating facts supported by evidence. Truth is a defense to a libel charge (at least in the U.S.). And as mentioned above, when the libel plaintiff is a "public figure," a higher standard applies, precisely because of the public interest in ferreting out corruption and the like.
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
geuis 13y ago
Thanks for a well-discussed and well-thought response, which is more than the other responses garnered. "Go back to Slashdot", "You're a biggot", etc. I say what I think and while some people don't like what I say, I try to be as realistic about a situation as I can be. So yes, on average Texans are among the most devout Christians and among the worst educated in the United States. There are more than enough public statistics to back this up. In response to your libel statement, while I respect your background, that is entirely not the point. It's actually exactly the response I would expect from someone or a group who are involved in nefarious acts and are being called out on it. Rather than addressing the accusation and presenting evidence to the contrary, they seek to attack and silence the investigator by throwing out accusations of libel. It's a tactic of snakes. Unless I am seriously misunderstanding what happened here, which is possible, there was no mutual settlement here. Lodsys was allowed to unilaterally settle. Most of Apple's arguments were just ignored. Quoting from the article, "The East Texas judge overseeing Lodsys' systematic patent attack on app developers has refused to even consider Apple's motion. Instead, he allowed the patent-holding company to settle all its cases—and then dismissed Apple's motion as moot. By doing so, US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap—who has inherited the patent-happy East Texas court that once belonged to patent-troll favorite T. John Ward—has enabled Lodsys to threaten developers for months, and perhaps even years, to come." This is why I stand by my question of corruption. Another commenter posted about no one finding corruption out of normal bounds. At least someone has been looking into it. But when you smell smoke, something's burning. These cases keep getting the same rulings over and over, in one area of the country, by the same judges, in an area of business that is essentially parasitic and damaging to the very nature of my industry. It has to stop
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > It's actually exactly the response I would expect from someone or a group who are involved in nefarious acts and are being called out on it. For what it's worth, when I was a patent litigator back in the day, I worked almost entirely on the defense side of the docket; that was coincidental, but I wasn't unhappy about it. -------- > ... there was no mutual settlement here. Lodsys was allowed to unilaterally settle. There's no such thing as a unilateral settlement in a lawsuit; both the plaintiff and the defendant in question must agree, otherwise there's no settlement. (Exception: A plaintiff can unilaterally dismiss its lawsuit against one or more defendants, without prejudice, but only if it does so before the defendant in question files an answer or motion for summary judgment.) My guess -- unencumbered by any knowledge of the case -- is that Lodsys made a generous settlement offer to its defendants so that the case would become moot, in the hope that this would cut the ground out from under Apple's motion. If that was Lodsys's intent, it seems to have worked -- for now. From what I can tell from the report, there'd be nothing nefarious about a strategic withdrawal of that kind.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
Surely the words "probable" and "hypothesis" are what means it is almost definitely not libellous. A hypothesis is the start of reason, not the conclusion of it. To state a hypothesis is to admit to a suspicion that something is possible, not to state something to be true.
cft 13y ago
Easy mr. Patent Lawyer.. Read this: Lodsys can be sure it will continue to draw Judge Gilstrap as long as it files its cases in Marshall, Texas. The other judge who considers patent cases filed there is US District Judge Leonard Davis; but since Judge Davis' son William "Bo" Davis is Lodsys' lawyer, the company's cases will all be redirected to Gilstrap. I think this is grounds for further investigation.

by dctoedt 13y ago

sillysaurus2 13y ago

This is the definition of "What the fuck." Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum, just because he's talking about a judge? He didn't threaten anybody.

dctoedt 13y ago
> Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum? He didn't threaten anybody. Like it or not, libel laws apply on-line as much as anywhere. As just one example, in 2006 a Florida woman won an $11 million verdict against a Louisiana woman who had called her a crook, a con artist, and a fraud in an on-line forum [1]. Do a Google search for "libel on-line" and you'll see lots of ads for lawyers hoping to be hired to bring a lawsuit for libel. Incidentally, accusations like those of the GP are known as "libel per se." [2] Another thing to consider: If you make an arguably-libelous statement on-line about a foreign citizen, that person might sue you in a "libel tourism" destination such as the UK, which until earlier this year was (and to a certain extent still is) much more friendly to libel plaintiffs than is the U.S. (Fortunately for U.S. citizens, U.S. law severely limits the enforceability in U.S. courts of a foreign libel-tourism judgment [3].) [1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-intern... [2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel+per+se http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel+per+se [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#United_States
- geuis 13y ago
  Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form. This is not even close to what I'm doing. I look at the world scientifically. Hence a hypothesis and not a theory. I am asking a question and don't have hard evidence one way or the other. I have a suspicion, which is where hypothesises get started. This is not libel, it's fact finding. Were I to call you a prevaricating snake that took bribes on your last 6 cases and were rogering the judge during tea time, then that would be libel. But I am not saying that about you because it's not true, hopefully. I'm the first to admit I'm not a lawyer and I'm quite happy about that. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant or uneducated about things though. I also learn something new each day and am happy to be proven wrong. Cheers.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    "Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form." Actually, in the US, it doesn't have to intend to cause damage to be libel (it does have to damage reputation), unless it is a public figure of some sort (in which case it requires what is known as "New York Times malice"). If you libel'd a private figure, negligently, you'd likely still be liable, though damages would likely be limited to actual harm.
  - subway 13y ago
    Libel applies when a judge and/or jury decides it applies, regardless of your opinion on the meaning of any word.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - stephencanon 13y ago
    > Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form. Look up "libel per se". Certain types of false statements are so clearly damaging that there is no requirement of malicious intent for uttering them to constitute libel. Falsely accusing someone of committing a crime, for example.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
legalparanoia 13y ago
>Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum, just because he's talking about a judge? annoying people whose career is in the application of state force is not a wise thing to do

option_greek 13y ago

"The judge is constrained by long-established rules. Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal courts to actual cases and controversies." Even if that was the case, assuming nothing bad is going on, there has to be a reason all these cases end up there. It's too frequent to be a coincidence.

ngoldbaum 13y ago
The wikipedia article for the Eastern district Federal court gives a good summary without appealing to anything nefarious: Most recently, the Eastern District of Texas has seen an increase in the number of cases filed relating to patent infringement. This District has experienced an increase in the number of patent cases filed and tried, notably in the courts of Judge T. John Ward in the Marshall Division, Judge Leonard Davis in the Tyler Division, and Judge David Folsom in the Texarkana Division. Perhaps because the district has a set of local rules for patent cases and relatively fast trial settings, patent plaintiffs have flocked to this small venue. In addition the proximity to larger cities (such as Dallas and Houston) along with an aging jury pool interested in protecting property rights, may attract patent cases to Marshall, Tyler, and Texarkana. [1] Basically, the judges tend to be friendly to plaintiffs (as is their right as duly appointed federal judges) and the jury pool tend to be in favor of patents and strong property rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_fo...
- cobrausn 13y ago
  You... managed to completely ignore the 'fast trial settings' in your TL;DR. From the perspective of a law firm, this saves an incredible amount of time and money.
dctoedt 13y ago
> Even if that was the case, assuming nothing bad is going on, there has to be a reason all these cases end up there. It's too frequent to be a coincidence. Fifteen-plus years ago the Eastern District of Texas developed a reputation as a good place to litigate patent cases because at the time it was a fast docket (not so much any more, because of all the patent cases being filed there) and the judges there have come to know patent law pretty well, which is welcomed by lawyers for both sides. In a 2010 article, Stanford law professor Mark Lemley, who is known for his careful statistical analysis of patent cases (and is cited amazingly often by the Supreme Court), noted that the win rate for patent owners in the Eastern District was 40% [1]. In a 2013 article, Lemley concluded that "... the patent sophistication of the jury pool had no statistically significant effect on trial outcomes." [2] [1] http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/Lemley.pdf http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/Lemley.pdf [2] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2217690 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2217690, page 177, text accompanying note 24.

mistercow 13y ago

Don't terms like "probable" and "my hypothesis" pretty obviously make this a statement of opinion, and therefore immune to libel claims?

dctoedt 13y ago
> Don't terms like "probable" and "my hypothesis" pretty obviously make this a statement of opinion, and therefore immune to libel claims? Quite possibly. But who wants to spend the legal fees to test that? Pragmatically, it's better to stay reasonably far away from the edge of that particular cliff, lest one be propelled over the edge by a random gust of wind (or a well-placed push).
- alexqgb 13y ago
  The FUD you're spreading here relies on apples to oranges comparisons, where the apples are public officials working in thee public capacity, and the oranges are private citizens. Before you go any further, I challenge you to find actual apples to apples examples that can support your remarkably menacing position.
- mistercow 13y ago
  I don't think that's a healthy attitude, especially when we're talking about the possibility of corruption. If we all take that "pragmatic" view, what will actually prevent corruption?
  - dctoedt 13y ago
    > If we all take that "pragmatic" view, what will actually prevent corruption? Journalists. They know that you avoid libel by stating facts supported by evidence. Truth is a defense to a libel charge (at least in the U.S.). And as mentioned above, when the libel plaintiff is a "public figure," a higher standard applies, precisely because of the public interest in ferreting out corruption and the like.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago

geuis 13y ago

Thanks for a well-discussed and well-thought response, which is more than the other responses garnered. "Go back to Slashdot", "You're a biggot", etc. I say what I think and while some people don't like what I say, I try to be as realistic about a situation as I can be. So yes, on average Texans are among the most devout Christians and among the worst educated in the United States. There are more than enough public statistics to back this up. In response to your libel statement, while I respect your background, that is entirely not the point. It's actually exactly the response I would expect from someone or a group who are involved in nefarious acts and are being called out on it. Rather than addressing the accusation and presenting evidence to the contrary, they seek to attack and silence the investigator by throwing out accusations of libel. It's a tactic of snakes. Unless I am seriously misunderstanding what happened here, which is possible, there was no mutual settlement here. Lodsys was allowed to unilaterally settle. Most of Apple's arguments were just ignored. Quoting from the article, "The East Texas judge overseeing Lodsys' systematic patent attack on app developers has refused to even consider Apple's motion. Instead, he allowed the patent-holding company to settle all its cases—and then dismissed Apple's motion as moot. By doing so, US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap—who has inherited the patent-happy East Texas court that once belonged to patent-troll favorite T. John Ward—has enabled Lodsys to threaten developers for months, and perhaps even years, to come." This is why I stand by my question of corruption. Another commenter posted about no one finding corruption out of normal bounds. At least someone has been looking into it. But when you smell smoke, something's burning. These cases keep getting the same rulings over and over, in one area of the country, by the same judges, in an area of business that is essentially parasitic and damaging to the very nature of my industry. It has to stop

dctoedt 13y ago
> It's actually exactly the response I would expect from someone or a group who are involved in nefarious acts and are being called out on it. For what it's worth, when I was a patent litigator back in the day, I worked almost entirely on the defense side of the docket; that was coincidental, but I wasn't unhappy about it. -------- > ... there was no mutual settlement here. Lodsys was allowed to unilaterally settle. There's no such thing as a unilateral settlement in a lawsuit; both the plaintiff and the defendant in question must agree, otherwise there's no settlement. (Exception: A plaintiff can unilaterally dismiss its lawsuit against one or more defendants, without prejudice, but only if it does so before the defendant in question files an answer or motion for summary judgment.) My guess -- unencumbered by any knowledge of the case -- is that Lodsys made a generous settlement offer to its defendants so that the case would become moot, in the hope that this would cut the ground out from under Apple's motion. If that was Lodsys's intent, it seems to have worked -- for now. From what I can tell from the report, there'd be nothing nefarious about a strategic withdrawal of that kind.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

Surely the words "probable" and "hypothesis" are what means it is almost definitely not libellous. A hypothesis is the start of reason, not the conclusion of it. To state a hypothesis is to admit to a suspicion that something is possible, not to state something to be true.

cft 13y ago

Easy mr. Patent Lawyer.. Read this: Lodsys can be sure it will continue to draw Judge Gilstrap as long as it files its cases in Marshall, Texas. The other judge who considers patent cases filed there is US District Judge Leonard Davis; but since Judge Davis' son William "Bo" Davis is Lodsys' lawyer, the company's cases will all be redirected to Gilstrap. I think this is grounds for further investigation.