As I still have a law license kicking around I must say, none of the following is legal advice. For definitive advice, seek counsel in your area. That said:
Have your cease and desist letter framed and keep it as a lasting memento/badge of greatness. I have several of them and frame each new one. Perhaps a personal thing, but I do see them as a sign of the site gaining...er...notice.
In the shortterm I would do nothing more than writing a very gentle response stating that you are a non-comm site and it is your belief and understanding that your sight does not infringe on Purdue. There are several good domain defense groups/sites. Check out http://www.ajax.org/dda/ which is the sight of Domain Defense Advocates and the infamous ajax battle .
Hope this helps. If you get a second letter, please feel free to email me, I may know someone down there. Also, I am certain that Purdue School of Law has a clinic and that some young law student would love to chew on this. Good luck.
I will not give you any names as it is just asking for trouble. However, a few benchmark issues are worth considering:
1: As was stated, the patent bar is the highest paid area of the law, IP arguably the highest within the group. There is a self-fullfilling prophecy at work that if the atty is not charging you at least $350/hour he is not worth using. This is great for the atty's as long as people keep believing it. It is possible to negotiate fees and incidentials...DO IT. When all is said and done, attys are service providers. You *will* find an atty that will do what you want the way you want it. Don't buy the general "I'm doing you a favor taking your money" routine.
2: Do not necessarily limit yourself to your local. In patent more than most other areas you do not necessarily need to be close to your atty. While it is nice and at times convienent, it can also hit you in the wallet. There is great talent around the country, don't limit yourself to a given neighborhood.
3: This is strictly a personal opinion, but I would focus on small to midsize firms rather than the big guys. From my personal experience I think you will get far better service, generally less multi-client billing issues , and a more flexible structure. Again, remember that the nature of the relationship should be on *your* terms. Far too many people still buy the "lawyers know things I don't know so I should just take the crap s/he dishes out." Negotiate, Negotiate, Negotiate.
I hope this made a bit of sense, I've had no coffee, the day is young and my brain is not yet on good terms with the rest of me.......
Report it does make a damn good read from a "history of the industry" standpoint. If, however, the judge wants to market this 207 page gem it needs some sex appeal. To that end, I offer the following rumors I have heard about the forthcoming Index.
First, it has been said that the index will contain the detailed reports of M$'s use of fetal tissue to create the inks it uses in it's manuals.
There is also an analysis of the unsubstantiated rumor that much of M$'s bloatware is the product of thousands of chained, blindfolded and nude young college grads trapped in the Redmond Dungeons, randomly pounding on keys to created the outstanding applications inflicted upon us all.
Further, the index will detail M$'s poorly conceived "collectible" Certificates of Authenticity, embossed on human skin.
Assuming Judge Jackson is willing to tell the *true tales* of M$'s morally bankrupt practices and not just page after page of monopolistic and anti-competitive drivel he could end up with the greats of the bench, Judge Starr and Judge Ito.
I'm going to go read the last section over and over till I drift off to sleep...........
As a follow-up to my earlier critique it occurs to me that a simple cost/benefit analysis wholly supports M$'s behavior throughout. Judge Jackson has painstakingly detailed M$'s anti-competitive and monopolistic practices and demonstrated repeatedly the direct and negative impact this behavior had on the industry and consumers...SO WHAT.
Weigh on one side the "cost" of such practices: $50MM++ in legal fees, another few hundred MM dollars related litigation costs/settlements, add anticipated costs of a breakup and/or civil/criminal liability of anywhere from $1 to $10BB. Realistically the downside could fall somewhere in the $2BB to $10BB range.
Having just spent an hour or so poking about M$'s financial history (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/history.htm) I find that M$ is sitting on about $19BB in *cash*. The bottom line is that in the great scheme of things, M$ has made *WAY* more money via monopolistic practices than those practices will ever "cost" them.
That said, perhaps we should remember the greatest of all corporate cost/benefit analysis...the Ford Pinto case. Ford's actuaries based their analysis on a human life being worth about $200K vs. a repair cost of about $3.68/car. The first judgement came back around $2.4MM and they took a bath. Perhaps that will happen here. I doubt it.
FWIW I think M$, evil manipulative bastards as they may well be, is a great stock buy right now. One way or another I think we are going to see the birth of several strong companies out of the golden ashes of M$.
I've read the FoF twice and am really taken aback by how "good" it actually is. We do not have a history of many judges really getting their brains around the technical issues in matters before them. Thus we tend to get the application of *old* style case law to our current market litigation. At times it works...usually it doesn't.
This judge really did get his brain around an incredibly complex modern monopoly. He has laid the groundwork in his FoF for a strong response to M$' behavior. Consider Section VII [The Effect on Consumers of M$'s Efforts to Protect the Applications Barrier to Entry](pp. 408-412). The implications are *very* clear that the *only* remedy to M$'s stranglehold on an entire industry is via its breakup.
While people are going to bemoan or hail this, the fact is it will probably be better both for the public and, truly, for M$ and its shareholders (who will probably be seeing a 3-5 to 1 stock split in the not so distant future). The smaller units will compete with eachother and others and arguably innovate/evolve better and faster .
Look at the history of similar predecessors, Standard Oil and ATT. What was lost in both cases in economy of scale was more than made up for through new competition and smaller, more dynamic companies. ATT, for one, is still spinning off units without Gov. intervention...Lucent is up what, 727% or thereabouts???? Consider some of those broken up "remnants," Chevron, Amoco, Gulf, Ameritech, BellAtlantic etc etc etc.
The smartest thing M$ could do right now is to stop fighting and proactively cut themselves apart. They are already into this litigation in the neighborhood of $50MM in attorney fees. I do not foresee the FoF being sucessfully challenged. It is time to smell the future.
Break it up and have 3-5 strong companies move forward. The alternative is another year or two of stunningly expensive heal dragging.
Slashdot Mirror
Have your cease and desist letter framed and keep it as a lasting memento/badge of greatness. I have several of them and frame each new one. Perhaps a personal thing, but I do see them as a sign of the site gaining...er...notice.
In the shortterm I would do nothing more than writing a very gentle response stating that you are a non-comm site and it is your belief and understanding that your sight does not infringe on Purdue. There are several good domain defense groups/sites. Check out http://www.ajax.org/dda/ which is the sight of Domain Defense Advocates and the infamous ajax battle .
Hope this helps. If you get a second letter, please feel free to email me, I may know someone down there. Also, I am certain that Purdue School of Law has a clinic and that some young law student would love to chew on this. Good luck.
rootrot
1: As was stated, the patent bar is the highest paid area of the law, IP arguably the highest within the group. There is a self-fullfilling prophecy at work that if the atty is not charging you at least $350/hour he is not worth using. This is great for the atty's as long as people keep believing it. It is possible to negotiate fees and incidentials...DO IT. When all is said and done, attys are service providers. You *will* find an atty that will do what you want the way you want it. Don't buy the general "I'm doing you a favor taking your money" routine.
2: Do not necessarily limit yourself to your local. In patent more than most other areas you do not necessarily need to be close to your atty. While it is nice and at times convienent, it can also hit you in the wallet. There is great talent around the country, don't limit yourself to a given neighborhood .
3: This is strictly a personal opinion, but I would focus on small to midsize firms rather than the big guys. From my personal experience I think you will get far better service, generally less multi-client billing issues , and a more flexible structure. Again, remember that the nature of the relationship should be on *your* terms. Far too many people still buy the "lawyers know things I don't know so I should just take the crap s/he dishes out." Negotiate, Negotiate, Negotiate.
I hope this made a bit of sense, I've had no coffee, the day is young and my brain is not yet on good terms with the rest of me.......
rootrot
First, it has been said that the index will contain the detailed reports of M$'s use of fetal tissue to create the inks it uses in it's manuals.
There is also an analysis of the unsubstantiated rumor that much of M$'s bloatware is the product of thousands of chained, blindfolded and nude young college grads trapped in the Redmond Dungeons, randomly pounding on keys to created the outstanding applications inflicted upon us all.
Further, the index will detail M$'s poorly conceived "collectible" Certificates of Authenticity, embossed on human skin.
Assuming Judge Jackson is willing to tell the *true tales* of M$'s morally bankrupt practices and not just page after page of monopolistic and anti-competitive drivel he could end up with the greats of the bench, Judge Starr and Judge Ito.
I'm going to go read the last section over and over till I drift off to sleep...........
rootrot
Weigh on one side the "cost" of such practices: $50MM++ in legal fees, another few hundred MM dollars related litigation costs/settlements, add anticipated costs of a breakup and/or civil/criminal liability of anywhere from $1 to $10BB. Realistically the downside could fall somewhere in the $2BB to $10BB range.
Having just spent an hour or so poking about M$'s financial history (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/history.htm) I find that M$ is sitting on about $19BB in *cash*. The bottom line is that in the great scheme of things, M$ has made *WAY* more money via monopolistic practices than those practices will ever "cost" them.
That said, perhaps we should remember the greatest of all corporate cost/benefit analysis...the Ford Pinto case. Ford's actuaries based their analysis on a human life being worth about $200K vs. a repair cost of about $3.68/car. The first judgement came back around $2.4MM and they took a bath. Perhaps that will happen here. I doubt it.
FWIW I think M$, evil manipulative bastards as they may well be, is a great stock buy right now. One way or another I think we are going to see the birth of several strong companies out of the golden ashes of M$.
rootrot
This judge really did get his brain around an incredibly complex modern monopoly. He has laid the groundwork in his FoF for a strong response to M$' behavior. Consider Section VII [The Effect on Consumers of M$'s Efforts to Protect the Applications Barrier to Entry](pp. 408-412). The implications are *very* clear that the *only* remedy to M$'s stranglehold on an entire industry is via its breakup.
While people are going to bemoan or hail this, the fact is it will probably be better both for the public and, truly, for M$ and its shareholders (who will probably be seeing a 3-5 to 1 stock split in the not so distant future). The smaller units will compete with eachother and others and arguably innovate/evolve better and faster .
Look at the history of similar predecessors, Standard Oil and ATT. What was lost in both cases in economy of scale was more than made up for through new competition and smaller, more dynamic companies. ATT, for one, is still spinning off units without Gov. intervention...Lucent is up what, 727% or thereabouts???? Consider some of those broken up "remnants," Chevron, Amoco, Gulf, Ameritech, BellAtlantic etc etc etc.
The smartest thing M$ could do right now is to stop fighting and proactively cut themselves apart. They are already into this litigation in the neighborhood of $50MM in attorney fees. I do not foresee the FoF being sucessfully challenged. It is time to smell the future.
Break it up and have 3-5 strong companies move forward. The alternative is another year or two of stunningly expensive heal dragging.
rootrot