Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. If you are ever served with a complaint, I would welcome you to the Guild and would look forward to your learning civil procedure in the time given to you to file your answer...if you know how much time that is.
an antitrust investigation on deals like this wouldn't begin until there is an agreement and an HSR filing, which would then trigger a DOJ or FTC review. so are you saying that DOJ should have investigated Microsoft for merely offering to buy a company? i don't think so.
it's not that plaintiffs should be allowed to create an advantage through choice of venue, it's that large corporate defendants, who have significant ties to forums all over the country, should have to defend themselves wherever they engage in conduct giving rise to liability. do you sell a product in east texas? if yes, too bad. what is the reverse of all the comments in this thread? that plaintiffs have to litigate patent suits in defendants' home states and home forums. for large companies who are in constant litigation, this would create an insurmountable advantage.
this is not a popular thing to say, and i'm no friend of patent trolls, but this is a cost of doing business as a national & international corporation. period.
if the technology was so widely recognized/easily adopted that it became industry standard during or just after the prosecution of the patents, isn't this a great argument that the patents themselves are invalid for obviousness?
Slashdot Mirror
About 10 ounces of legalized [ahem] medication.
every time i've gone to mexico i've come back vomiting and crapping myself. just saying.
Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. If you are ever served with a complaint, I would welcome you to the Guild and would look forward to your learning civil procedure in the time given to you to file your answer...if you know how much time that is.
an antitrust investigation on deals like this wouldn't begin until there is an agreement and an HSR filing, which would then trigger a DOJ or FTC review. so are you saying that DOJ should have investigated Microsoft for merely offering to buy a company? i don't think so.
it's not that plaintiffs should be allowed to create an advantage through choice of venue, it's that large corporate defendants, who have significant ties to forums all over the country, should have to defend themselves wherever they engage in conduct giving rise to liability. do you sell a product in east texas? if yes, too bad. what is the reverse of all the comments in this thread? that plaintiffs have to litigate patent suits in defendants' home states and home forums. for large companies who are in constant litigation, this would create an insurmountable advantage. this is not a popular thing to say, and i'm no friend of patent trolls, but this is a cost of doing business as a national & international corporation. period.
if the technology was so widely recognized/easily adopted that it became industry standard during or just after the prosecution of the patents, isn't this a great argument that the patents themselves are invalid for obviousness?