Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Troll With 'Stupid Patent' Sues EFF. EFF Sues Them Back (arstechnica.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the see-you-in-court dept.

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation has sued an Australian company that it previously dubbed as a 'classic patent troll' in a June 2016 blog post entitled: Stupid Patent of the Month: Storage Cabinets on a Computer." An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica: Last year, that company, Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. (GEMSA), managed to get an Australian court to order EFF to remove its post -- but EFF did not comply. In January 2017, Pasha Mehr, an attorney representing GEMSA, further demanded that the article be removed and that EFF pay $750,000. EFF still did not comply. The new lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday, asks that the American court declare the Australian ruling unenforceable in the U.S.
GEMSA's attorneys reportedly threatened to have the EFF's post de-indexed from search engine listings -- on the basis of the Australian court order -- so now the EFF "seeks a court order declaring the Australian injunction 'repugnant' to the U.S. Constitution and unenforceable in the United States."

The Register reports that GEMSA has already sued 37 companies, "including big-name tech companies Airbnb, Uber, Netflix, Spotify, and eBay. In each case, GEMSA accused the company's website design of somehow trampling on the GUI patent without permission." But things were different after the EFF's article, according to Courthouse News. "GEMSA said the article made it harder to enforce its patents in the United States, citing its legal opponents' 'reduced interest in pursuing pre-trial settlement negotiations.'"

68 comments

  1. Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it too much to ask for SOME professionalism anymore?

    The Australian court found for the plaintiff...

    1. Re: Could you come up with a more biased title? by davecb · · Score: 1

      The EFF wasn't represented, and so the court gave them 28 days to reply if they wanted to overturn the order. Courts are cautious about cases where only one party appears...

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    2. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Australian court found for the plaintiff...

      This is not about the Australian court ruling - it's about the countersuit in an American court

    3. Re: Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, seems like they were improperly sued in an Australian court.

      There are normally rules where you should sue where the defendant is located.

      As far as I can tell EFF is is located in the USA and has members and partners around the world.

    4. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Is it too much to ask for SOME professionalism anymore?

      The Australian court found for the plaintiff...

      The order doesn't have any effect anyway, unless Australia wants to go to the trouble of firewaling its entire internet.

    5. Re: Could you come up with a more biased title? by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was a .......Kangaroo court?

      I'm so ashamed but I just could not stop myself.

    6. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The educationally subnormal believe that there are two sides to every situation. We need fair representation of each side of the sides. Someone suggests that gravity makes things fall down and they demand that that the "up gravity party" have equal representation, never even thinking of that the sideways gravity party might be just as worth listening to. In the end however, gravity falls "down" because that's what down means. There is no second opinion we need to listen to.

      If the patent is stupid then just say it's stupid. "Professionalism" be damned. Idiots be damned.

    7. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Try and realize the truth, there is no 'down'. And if you don't believe me, just ask an astronaut.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      Title seems to be perfectly accurate to me. This is a "non-practicing entity" -- a piece of legal jargon referring to what is known in the vernacular as a "patent troll". This troll is suing EFF because EFF called one of its patents "stupid" -- and in fact the title duly quotes the term "stupid patent". In logic this is called "reification" -- in essence talking about a statement without necessarily accepting or rejecting its content. You may agree with the statement "Alice called Bob a 'bastard'," without asserting that Bob is a bastard yourself.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by cob666 · · Score: 1

      Is it too much to ask for SOME professionalism anymore?

      The title is perfect because it quotes the original EFF blog post, titled 'Stupid Patent of the Month: Storage Cabinets on a Computer'.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    10. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it too much to ask for SOME professionalism anymore?

      Yes, when it comes to blatant patent trolls, it is too much to ask.

      They are nothing but a drain, a cancer, a parasite, on society.

      They can all burn and I hope any and all law firms working for them are caught in the fire as well.

    11. Re: Could you come up with a more biased title? by DarthStrydre · · Score: 2

      The enemy's gate is down...

    12. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Try and realize the truth, there is no 'down'. And if you don't believe me, just ask an astronaut.

      "Down" is an attitude, e.g."NASA astronaut Ron Garan sang the blues after learning his return to Earth from the International Space Station could be delayed..."

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    13. Re: Could you come up with a more biased title? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I wonder what percentage of Australian judicial system workers end up in prison because they hear that joke one too many times, flip out, and murder the person who said it? I'm guessing it's gotta be at least 20%.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Seems pretty accurate to me.

    15. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we please get over this "non-practicing entity" crap! There's nothing wrong with holding a portfolio of patents and then licensing them. The real problem is that patent trolls hold portfolios of bullshit patents, and employ a small army of lawyer to intimidate people into licensing. That's abuse of process, and should be a criminal offense, and should be cause for disbarment of involved attorneys.

    16. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Australian Internet is so slow that nobody notices if something is firewalled off. We just figure someone took a backhoe to the local copper again.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    17. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      There's nothing wrong with holding a portfolio of patents and then licensing them.

      As long as the entity can be (counter-)sued in such a way that a loss hurts those responsible for trolling, there's nothing wrong with this in principle.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    18. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we please get over this "non-practicing entity" crap!

      Why? It is rather crappy, after all.

      There's nothing wrong with holding a portfolio of patents and then licensing them.

      Sure there is. Maybe not from a strictly legal standpoint, but morally it's as close to a leech on society as you can get, really. Plenty wrong with that.

      The real problem is that patent trolls hold portfolios of bullshit patents, and employ a small army of lawyer to intimidate people into licensing.

      That's an even worse problem, but not the problem.

      That's abuse of process, and should be a criminal offense, and should be cause for disbarment of involved attorneys.

      On that we agree completely.

    19. Re: Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "there is no down, ask an astronaut"

      I did, and he said he came down to the earth's surface.

    20. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, that was my point: if they know (or should know) they're defending crap patents, they should pay dearly for a loss in court, even jail time for the execs and disbarment for the attorneys. Asserting and defending a bullshit patent is a type of perjury.

    21. Re: Could you come up with a more biased title? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Yes it was. The jury consisted of kangaroos.

    22. Re: Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well no, because Australia has a significantly lower murder rate than the US
      and since the ONLY people to make a "joke" out of that would be foreigners we just deport the suckers

    23. Re:Could you come up with a more biased title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australian Internet is so slow that nobody notices if something is firewalled off. We just figure someone took a backhoe to the local copper again.

      Dammit, where's the "Oooh, sick burn!" mod!?

  2. The EFF brings the laughter by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have to love it, "Their article made it harder to enforce ridiculous patents"

    He does realize most people's response will be GOOD !

  3. Huh? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    The court order wont be enforced in the US - it will be enforced in Australia, by an Australian court, and if the EFF refuse to comply, then the Australian court will issue contempt proceedings, in Australia.

    If the court fines the EFF, then that fine can be pursued in the US under separate law, but it probably wont need to be.

    And I'm on the EFFs side in this battle, I just think their filing in the SF court is ridiculous and a waste of money, as any court ruling in SF will have utterly no effect on this order.

    1. Re:Huh? by pem · · Score: 2

      If the court fines the EFF, then that fine can be pursued in the US under separate law, but it probably wont need to be.

      Umm, no.

      Have you actually read the SPEECH act?

      Or even the very first sentence of the wikipedia article on it?

    2. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since most slash dotters rarely RTFA, how on earth can you assume they've done extra research about what was said in the article? Whose more foolish, the fool or the fool who expected to fool to not be foolish?

    3. Re:Huh? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right, and you do realise that the SPEECH act does not matter to the Australian judicial system, right? If its bounced out of the US, the EFF had better hope it never has any funds or assets in Australia, because they will be seized under contempt of court, and contempt of court rulings aren't covered by the SPEECH act even if the contempt is based on an original case which is, so any fines issued under contempt of court *can* be pursued in US courts against its US assets.

      The SPEECH act is not a "get out of jail free card", and it does NOT solve the underlying issue - there is a valid court order issued in Australia, and any ruling by a San Francisco court doesn't invalidated it, it just limits the ability to collect under that specific ruling in the US. There are multiple ways around that if the EFF want to ignore the Australian court...

      Yes, I've read the SPEECH act (been a few years tho).

    4. Re:Huh? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But the SF court case will establish a record that GEMSA will find more difficult to get delisted, even in Australia.

      I don't think that it is libellous to report on the SF case. Assuming the EFF wins the case, it would be a factual statement to say (hypothetically) "a court in the USA agreed with the EFF that GEMSA's patent 6,690,400 is stupid".

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Huh? by pem · · Score: 1

      and contempt of court rulings aren't covered by the SPEECH act even if the contempt is based on an original case which is, so any fines issued under contempt of court *can* be pursued in US courts against its US assets.

      Bzzzt!!!

      We have a loser. Contempt doesn't work that way in Australia, and even if it did, a US court wouldn't separate costs, fees, or fines from the underlying judgment.

    6. Re:Huh? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Oh hell yes. That's too damn good to pass up.

    7. Re: Huh? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Traditionally, slashdot users avoid the linked article because it is a clickbait ad, and because they do in fact do lots of research about the same topics on their own. That's what you do, you ignore the story, you ignore the summary, and instead go read about the subject from a reliable source.

    8. Re: Huh? by Entrope · · Score: 2

      A US court would not issue a declaratory judgment that the patent is stupid. It might issue a declaratory judgment that the EFF has a right, protected by the First Amendment, to say that the patent is stupid, even though an Australian court ruled against the EFF by default.

    9. Re:Huh? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The SPEECH act prevents the enforcement of ANY legal action covered by the SPEECH act.

      The EFF isn't going to be paying anything and you should give up the armchair lawyer card because you aren't any good at it.

    10. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I thought based on what the US DOJ are trying to do in the Kim Dotcom case that USA law is applicable globally?? Perhaps the Australian court can judge EFF a fugitive from justice and civil forfeit all of their $$$ ??? ;-)

    11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prevents any legal action from being enforced _in the US_.

      "Any United States person subjected to a foreign judgment for defamation may bring an action in a U.S. court to obtain a declaratory judgment that the overseas defamation judgment is "repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States" for any of these reasons; if successful then the foreign case cannot be enforced in the U.S."

    12. Re:Huh? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You are presuming that they will win their case. I agree that they *should* win their case, but that's a different statement.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Huh? by pem · · Score: 1
      Well, yeah, of course -- when you travel to Outer Slobberistan, US rules don't apply.

      But enforcement in the US was the bulk of the nit that was being picked.

      The EFF is an organization that is focused on American laws. Australia has its own EFA.

      I suppose that, if they want to be overcautious, any EFF staffers traveling to Australia on EFF business should insure they are taking personal laptops rather than organization-owned ones, but it's really difficult to imagine any enforcement of this particular default verdict would actually occur inside Australia.

    14. Re:Huh? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      They'd be foolish to try to enforce it because the judge was negligent in determining if he/she had jurisdiction. The court clearly didn't have jurisdiction in this case, it was a US charity posting on a US server to a US audience and too boot the complaint is that it caused US based companies to react. There wasn't a thing in this lawsuit that involved Australia and the judge should have thrown it out for lack of jurisdiction.

      But regardless no US court is going to enforce anything related to this as the case clearly violates US speech rights. This was the exact intent of the SPEECH act, to prevent just this type of bullshit.

    15. Re:Huh? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      To clarify free speech in Australia is the right to express your 'opinion' and not the right to express false statements of facts not matter what the hell you believe. The EFF is making a serious blunder in saying nayh nyah Australian law does not apply in the US because that would cripple legal process between Australia and the US in both directions. The EFF was required to prove that the stupid patent of the month was a valid claim and an accurate statement of fact or that it was an opinion a line from the page "As far as we can tell, GEMSA seems to think that anyone with a website that links to hosted content infringes its patent", seems sufficient for that cause (added into their definition of what they mean by stupid patent of the month). Likely they did not defend it in Australia because they felt they did not have to, which was a serious blunder. Keep in mind in civil court cases in Australia loser pays, so all they had to do was prove themselves correct, spending enough money until the litigant runs out of money (the court requires you to prove your ability to continue to pay to play and that pay does mean both sides, so corporate types cheat with extraordinary expensive queens counsels). So the EFF should have fought it in an Australia court (where they would have been far better off than in a US court) because GEMSA would have ended up paying their costs as well, so double plus win.

      PS note that when it comes to suing outside of this slander case where facts claimed must be proven, they sue in US courts because loser only pays their own costs ie for a patent claim, should the claim fail, the person that made the claim has to pay the legal costs of the person they targeted that claim at (playing with civil courts in Australia is really painful for the loser), EFF was stupid in failing to do the tiniest bit of research, so idiotically typical for Americans (GEMSA were betting on this to happen, otherwise they would have been totally screwed, especially if the EFF started inflating court costs, delays, extension, queens counsel, expert testimony et al).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Huh? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      PS just to make it clear, civil court in Australia is like a poker game, where you can bluff and raise the bet, beyond the ability of the other player to call and they must fold, and pay not only all they have bet but everything you have bet. So seriously dangerous exercise which is why not many bullshit patent claims in Australia (note the patent part if most definitely occurring in the US).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:Huh? by pem · · Score: 1

      The EFF is making a serious blunder in saying nayh nyah Australian law does not apply in the US because that would cripple legal process between Australia and the US in both directions.

      Actually, no. The EFF is doing just fine. They reason they don't give a shit about what some court rules on the other side of the world is that they don't have a legal reason to give a shit.

    18. Re:Huh? by pem · · Score: 1

      P.S. Just to make it clear, that still doesn't give the EFF a reason to give a shit about what happens in Australia.

    19. Re: Huh? by pem · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's possible that all the reasoning that goes into that judgment could result in some juicy judicial quotes. Given all the prior art pointed out by the EFF, the characterization of the patent as "stupid" is eminently reasonable, and doesn't even rise to the level of hyperbole.

    20. Re:Huh? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Civil forfeiture in most places in Australia only applies to crimes with a commercial aspect or profit motive. This sometimes doesn't mean what people think it means, but nonetheless, in this case, there are no ill-gotten gains to forfeit.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  4. Cancer is treatable by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    A surgeon would just cut the cancer out and follow up with chemo and radiation to be sure.

    1. Re:Cancer is treatable by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      A surgeon would just cut the cancer out and follow up with chemo and radiation to be sure.

      My understanding is that one must nuke it from orbit to be sure.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. This line says it all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "GEMSA said the article made it harder to enforce its patents in the United States, citing its legal opponents' 'reduced interest in pursuing pre-trial settlement negotiations.'"

    So in one sentence admitting that they are patent trolls interested only in pre-trial settlements, not in actually enforcing it's vague and non-enforceable patents!

    Talk about shooting yourself in the nut-sack!!!

    1. Re:This line says it all! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Haha....I'm going to make a donation to the EFF today! They're contributing to the common good by sticking it in these Bastard's eyes.

  6. virtual cabinets? by kimvette · · Score: 4, Informative

    > This month’s stupid patent, US Patent No. 6,690,400 (the ’400 patent), claims the idea of using “virtual cabinets” to graphically represent data storage and organization.

    "Magic Desk" for the Commodore 64 (released in 1983) used virtual file cabinets.
    So did GEOS applications, IIRC.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:virtual cabinets? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I forgot to add:
      This is a stupid patent.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:virtual cabinets? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It's like the people that issue these patents have never seen a computer.

    3. Re:virtual cabinets? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      It's like the people that issue these patents have never seen a computer.

      Of course. Only lawyers submit, examine and issue patents.

    4. Re:virtual cabinets? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Heck, I also had a computer running GEM. (Graphic Environment Manager)
      Other than the operating system switch by clicking on a directory/folder/virtual cabinet (all 3 are the same thing in a graphic environment) I don't see anything that wasn't already available in the 80s, and even that might have existed.

    5. Re:virtual cabinets? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, it's been a long time, and I didn't work on it that much, but didn't the Wang Word Processing system describe collection of directories as cabinets? It's true they didn't use pictures of them, at least on the computer (but possibly in the documentation).

      In fact, I vaguely remember some IBM 360 documentation that used the image of file cabinets to depict collections of files...

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:virtual cabinets? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      The cabinets shown in the patent illustration look almost exactly like those used in AmigaDOS v1.x. They even open the same way. The Amiga was released in 1985, and the patent was filed in 1999.

  7. Kim Dotcom may offer advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kim Dotcom may offer advice about how jurisdiction in USA works.

  8. Oh hey GEMSA, you want this taken down? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well too fucking bad, because I'm reposting it instead. COME AT ME BRO!

    Stupid Patent of the Month: Storage Cabinets on a Computer

    How do you store your paper files? Perhaps you leave them scattered on your desk or piled on the floor. If you're more organized, you might keep them in a cabinet. This month's stupid patent, US Patent No. 6,690,400 (the '400 patent), claims the idea of using "virtual cabinets" to graphically represent data storage and organization. While this is bad, the worse news is that the patent's owner is suing just about anyone who runs a website.

    The '400 patent is owned by Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. ("GEMSA") which seems to be a classic patent troll. GEMSA is incorporated in Australia and appears to have no business other than patent litigation. The patent began its life with a company called Flash VOS. This company once offered a product that allowed users to run multiple operating systems on personal computers with x86-compatible processors. The '400 patent describes a graphical user interface for this system. The interface allows users to interact with "graphical depictions of cabinets" that represent memory partitions and different operating systems.

    GEMSA says that Flash VOS moved the computer industry a "quantum leap forwarded in the late 90's when it invented Systems Virtualization." But Flash VOS didn't invent partitions, didn't invent virtual machines, and didn't invent running multiple operating systems on a single computer. All of these concepts predate its patent application, some by decades. In any event, the '400 patent claims only a very specific, and in our view, quite mundane user interface.

    Importantly, the '400 patent's claims require very specific structures. For example, claim 1 requires "a secondary storage partitions window" and "at least one visible cabinet representing a discrete operating system." A user interface must have all of these features to infringe the claim.

    In the past year, GEMSA has sued dozens of companies, ranging from Airbnb to Zillow. In each case, it makes the bare assertion that the defendant's website infringes the '400 patent. For example, it simply states that "AIRBNB maintains, controls and/or operates a website with a graphical user interface ("GUI") at www.airbnb.com that infringes one or more claims of the '400 patent."

    GEMSA doesn't explain how Airbnb's website satisfies highly specific claim limitations like "a virtual cabinet representing a discrete operating system." In fact, the accused website bears almost no similarity to GEMSA's supposed invention:

    As far as we can tell, GEMSA seems to think that anyone with a website that links to hosted content infringes its patent. Complaints with such sparse, and implausible, infringement allegations should be thrown out immediately for failure to state a claim.

    There will be no prizes for guessing where GEMSA has filed its litigation. Every one of its cases was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, where we have long complained that local rules favor patent trolls like GEMSA. Venue reform legislation currently before Congress would stop trolls flocking to the Eastern District of Texas. That might help reduce abusive patent trolling. But we still need broader patent reform to ensure that such weak patents don't lead to abusive troll litigation.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:Oh hey GEMSA, you want this taken down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is the funniest part of this is Australia doesn't even have software patents.

      So this Australian company is registering a patent in a foreign land that it just could not do at home.

    2. Re:Oh hey GEMSA, you want this taken down? by Dantoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There may be something else interesting here too. I'm not clear on it and may have it wrong, but the Trans Pacific Partnership was touted as allowing for the enforcement of cross jurisdiction ruling for things like this.

      Did Trump just save the world from another round of vexatious patent trolling that uses cross-border court rulings as a weapon?

      Ummmm....Yay Trump....Yaaayyy....ummm.

    3. Re:Oh hey GEMSA, you want this taken down? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It would have required all patent systems in the partnership to be as stupid as the US one, that's one of the major reasons other countries didn't want it. We didn't want US style patent trolling.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Fuck it by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

    Just put a hit on the guy. Faster and certainly cheaper.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  10. First Party Popups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice Slashdot... i just had a popup with only first party javascript allowed. Go FUCK yourselves.

  11. Grabs popcorn... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    I wanna see a scenario where all the companies involved go for a counter suit and refuses to settle.

  12. Hypocrisy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You read all the time about someone in another country breaking US law and then being forced to travel to the US to face trial, but if someone in the US breaks another countries law it seems to be 'too bad we don't follow your laws'. Hypocrisy to say the least.

    But having said that, what a stupid patent.

  13. And they learn a lesson ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't bring lawsuits you don't want to go to trial. On the basis of the statement it makes pre-trial settlements more difficult, all their lawsuits should be thrown out, as it clearly demonstrates a tendency toward extortion not justice.