4 ms·
> 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 wo
by 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 agoOh 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 agoSo 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 agoCalling 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 agoLibel 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.