4 ms·

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 wh

by 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.
- geuis 13y ago
  Oh I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not attacking you personally. Just to be clear about that. Your response was just a good example of the kinds of tactics guilty parties use sometimes by trying to silence critics. Do you blog about your experiences? One thing I could stand to learn about more are the internals of patent litigation.
  - dctoedt 13y ago
    > Do you blog about your experiences? No, not about patent litigation. It's been a long time since I've done that kind of work, and I never was one of the star litigators in any case. But thanks for asking!
  - benologist 13y ago
    So far disagreeing with you = criminal activity, ignorance, small-mindedness, and what 'guilty' parties do to silence their critics. Alternatively, you might like to consider the possibility your opinions are simply not universal truths.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > So far disagreeing with you = [...] what 'guilty' parties do to silence their critics. I don't think that is a fair assessment of the above claim. The claim is that threats of libel suits are what guilty parties do to silence their critics, not disagreeing.
      - pyre 13y ago
        Calling libel suits the "tactic of snakes" doesn't really help out since libel is an actual thing that can severely damage a person's reputation.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Libel suits (or threats of them) where there isn't actually something that most reasonable people would consider libel is the tactic of snakes. It is nothing more than a specific case of SLAPP. Furthermore, I would loosely file "warning somebody about libel suits where there realistically is no chance of one occurring" under "'concern' trolling". Even if what @geuis said was libel (and to be clear, it isn't), there is fuck-all probability that he will become entangled in a libel lawsuit over it. Nobody but the deranged give a shit what random semi-anonymous nobodies with no influence or credibility say about them on the internet.
DannyBee 13y ago
"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. " You are seriously misunderstanding. There is a mutual settlement between Lodsys, and the actual defendants in the lawsuit. Apple is not a party to the lawsuit except as an intervenor. If the parties to the lawsuit want to settle, that's their call. If Apple wants to sue Lodsys for tortuous interference or something else, that's fine, it's a different suit. Otherwise, what would happen is you'd end up with a lawsuit that was against 7 companies, none of whom were still in the action. Your suggestion is essentially that Apple should be able to prevent the actual defendants and plaintiffs from ending the lawsuit, because Apple has a problem with one of the plaintiffs. If the defendants wanted to keep fighting, Apple's motion should probably have been granted. However, except in circumstances involving non-parties (like class actions), once folks want to settle, intervenors can't really object, as it should be. Note that the article is also some really bad reporting. Apple's motion to intervene in the lawsuit was actually granted: "SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - Apple has satisfied each of the four requirements for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2). The Court finds that permissive intervention is also appropriate under Rule 24(b). To avoid any potential prejudice to Lodsys rights under the License Agreement such intervention shall be and is hereby limited to the issues of license and patent exhaustion. Apples Motion to Intervene is GRANTED-IN-PART to the extent and as specified herein. Motions terminated: 4 MOTION to Intervene filed by Apple, Inc.. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 4/12/12. (ehs, ) Modified on 4/12/2012 (ch, )." So Apple was given a right to be heard as an intervenor, but once the underlying jurisdiction terminated due to the settlement, they have no standing, and all of their motions are moot. Note that apple could have prevented this outcome. If they had indemnified app developers by agreement (instead of disclaiming all liability), they likely would have been impleaded, which would have made them an actual defendant. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too.
- geuis 13y ago
  Thanks for clearing that up. It makes what was said before make more sense now.
cryofan 13y ago
I guess you did not pay attention in law school--a judge is a public figure. That means a much higher standard for libel/slander. Almost impossible to prove.
clavalle 13y ago
> 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. There is a huge (and growing) underclass in Texas that drags these kind of stats down.

by geuis 13y ago

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.

geuis 13y ago
Oh I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not attacking you personally. Just to be clear about that. Your response was just a good example of the kinds of tactics guilty parties use sometimes by trying to silence critics. Do you blog about your experiences? One thing I could stand to learn about more are the internals of patent litigation.
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > Do you blog about your experiences? No, not about patent litigation. It's been a long time since I've done that kind of work, and I never was one of the star litigators in any case. But thanks for asking!
- benologist 13y ago
  So far disagreeing with you = criminal activity, ignorance, small-mindedness, and what 'guilty' parties do to silence their critics. Alternatively, you might like to consider the possibility your opinions are simply not universal truths.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > So far disagreeing with you = [...] what 'guilty' parties do to silence their critics. I don't think that is a fair assessment of the above claim. The claim is that threats of libel suits are what guilty parties do to silence their critics, not disagreeing.
    - pyre 13y ago
      Calling libel suits the "tactic of snakes" doesn't really help out since libel is an actual thing that can severely damage a person's reputation.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        Libel suits (or threats of them) where there isn't actually something that most reasonable people would consider libel is the tactic of snakes. It is nothing more than a specific case of SLAPP. Furthermore, I would loosely file "warning somebody about libel suits where there realistically is no chance of one occurring" under "'concern' trolling". Even if what @geuis said was libel (and to be clear, it isn't), there is fuck-all probability that he will become entangled in a libel lawsuit over it. Nobody but the deranged give a shit what random semi-anonymous nobodies with no influence or credibility say about them on the internet.

DannyBee 13y ago

"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. " You are seriously misunderstanding. There is a mutual settlement between Lodsys, and the actual defendants in the lawsuit. Apple is not a party to the lawsuit except as an intervenor. If the parties to the lawsuit want to settle, that's their call. If Apple wants to sue Lodsys for tortuous interference or something else, that's fine, it's a different suit. Otherwise, what would happen is you'd end up with a lawsuit that was against 7 companies, none of whom were still in the action. Your suggestion is essentially that Apple should be able to prevent the actual defendants and plaintiffs from ending the lawsuit, because Apple has a problem with one of the plaintiffs. If the defendants wanted to keep fighting, Apple's motion should probably have been granted. However, except in circumstances involving non-parties (like class actions), once folks want to settle, intervenors can't really object, as it should be. Note that the article is also some really bad reporting. Apple's motion to intervene in the lawsuit was actually granted: "SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - Apple has satisfied each of the four requirements for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2). The Court finds that permissive intervention is also appropriate under Rule 24(b). To avoid any potential prejudice to Lodsys rights under the License Agreement such intervention shall be and is hereby limited to the issues of license and patent exhaustion. Apples Motion to Intervene is GRANTED-IN-PART to the extent and as specified herein. Motions terminated: 4 MOTION to Intervene filed by Apple, Inc.. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 4/12/12. (ehs, ) Modified on 4/12/2012 (ch, )." So Apple was given a right to be heard as an intervenor, but once the underlying jurisdiction terminated due to the settlement, they have no standing, and all of their motions are moot. Note that apple could have prevented this outcome. If they had indemnified app developers by agreement (instead of disclaiming all liability), they likely would have been impleaded, which would have made them an actual defendant. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

geuis 13y ago
Thanks for clearing that up. It makes what was said before make more sense now.

cryofan 13y ago

I guess you did not pay attention in law school--a judge is a public figure. That means a much higher standard for libel/slander. Almost impossible to prove.

clavalle 13y ago

> 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. There is a huge (and growing) underclass in Texas that drags these kind of stats down.