Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 117 posts

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#31

Post by geuis »

dctoedt wrote: post #12
sillysaurus2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the definition of "What the fuck." Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum, just because he's talking about a judge? He didn't threaten anybody.

> Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum? He didn't threaten anybody. Like it or not, libel laws apply on-line as much as anywhere. As just one example, in 2006 a Florida woman won an $11 million verdict against a Louisiana woman who had called her a crook, a con artist, and a fraud in an on-line forum [1]. Do a Google search for "libel on-line" and you'll see lots of ads for lawyers hoping to be hire…

Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form.

This is not even close to what I'm doing.

I look at the world scientifically. Hence a hypothesis and not a theory. I am asking a question and don't have hard evidence one way or the other. I have a suspicion, which is where hypothesises get started. This is not libel, it's fact finding.

Were I to call you a prevaricating snake that took bribes on your last 6 cases and were rogering the judge during tea time, then that would be libel. But I am not saying that about you because it's not true, hopefully.

I'm the first to admit I'm not a lawyer and I'm quite happy about that. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant or uneducated about things though. I also learn something new each day and am happy to be proven wrong.

Cheers.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#32

Post by DannyBee »

geuis wrote: post #27
dctoedt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why hasn't anyone addressed the probable criminal activity going on with these handful of judges in this one district of Texas? ... My hypothesis is there's a payoff racket going on. There's a multi level system setup with a few insiders who know how to pay off the local judges to dismiss certain cases. Careful there. Unless you've got more than a hypothesis, what you're saying borders on the libelous. (Not that a…

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 s…

"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.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#33

Post by geuis »

dctoedt wrote: post #30
geuis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> 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.…

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.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#34

Post by chetanahuja »

The texas east district stuff is fascinating. What if the app and software developers start licensing their apps with a license and technical measures explicitly excluding East Texas (or the entire state of texas, for extra safety) from the operation of the app.

It could be enforced by some soft of geofencing at app startup that splashes a "You're from East Texas, our app doesn't work there" type language. Will that affect the ability of the trolls to venue shop at least (if not to bring the suite in the first place).

Of course an even better response would be if smartphone vendors disable their entire OS's in that district. That might be fun.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#35

Post by jevinskie »

justinpombrio wrote: post #4

Here is what Lodsys has to say about the creator of the patents it asserts: > Abelow is not an officer or manager of Lodsys Group LLC, he has no interest in Lodsys patents, and he does not receive any revenue from the licenses granted by Lodsys in the patents he created.

So Abelow is either a fool for not getting a cut from Lodsys or he is a patent gifting fairy.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#36

Post by DannyBee »

geuis wrote: post #31
dctoedt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum? He didn't threaten anybody. Like it or not, libel laws apply on-line as much as anywhere. As just one example, in 2006 a Florida woman won an $11 million verdict against a Louisiana woman who had called her a crook, a con artist, and a fraud in an on-line forum [1]. Do a Google search for "libel on-line" and you'll see lots of ads for lawyers hoping to be hire…

Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form. This is not even close to what I'm doing. I look at the world scientifically. Hence a hypothesis and not a theory. I am asking a question and don't have hard evidence one way or the other. I have a suspicion, which is where hypothesises get started. This is not libel, it's fact finding. Were I to…

"Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form."

Actually, in the US, it doesn't have to intend to cause damage to be libel (it does have to damage reputation), unless it is a public figure of some sort (in which case it requires what is known as "New York Times malice").

If you libel'd a private figure, negligently, you'd likely still be liable, though damages would likely be limited to actual harm.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#37

Post by subway »

geuis wrote: post #31
dctoedt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum? He didn't threaten anybody. Like it or not, libel laws apply on-line as much as anywhere. As just one example, in 2006 a Florida woman won an $11 million verdict against a Louisiana woman who had called her a crook, a con artist, and a fraud in an on-line forum [1]. Do a Google search for "libel on-line" and you'll see lots of ads for lawyers hoping to be hire…

Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form. This is not even close to what I'm doing. I look at the world scientifically. Hence a hypothesis and not a theory. I am asking a question and don't have hard evidence one way or the other. I have a suspicion, which is where hypothesises get started. This is not libel, it's fact finding. Were I to…

Libel applies when a judge and/or jury decides it applies, regardless of your opinion on the meaning of any word.

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#38

Post by [deleted] »

geuis wrote: post #31
dctoedt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum? He didn't threaten anybody. Like it or not, libel laws apply on-line as much as anywhere. As just one example, in 2006 a Florida woman won an $11 million verdict against a Louisiana woman who had called her a crook, a con artist, and a fraud in an on-line forum [1]. Do a Google search for "libel on-line" and you'll see lots of ads for lawyers hoping to be hire…

Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form. This is not even close to what I'm doing. I look at the world scientifically. Hence a hypothesis and not a theory. I am asking a question and don't have hard evidence one way or the other. I have a suspicion, which is where hypothesises get started. This is not libel, it's fact finding. Were I to…

[deleted]

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#39

Post by [deleted] »

geuis wrote: post #31
dctoedt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum? He didn't threaten anybody. Like it or not, libel laws apply on-line as much as anywhere. As just one example, in 2006 a Florida woman won an $11 million verdict against a Louisiana woman who had called her a crook, a con artist, and a fraud in an on-line forum [1]. Do a Google search for "libel on-line" and you'll see lots of ads for lawyers hoping to be hire…

Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form. This is not even close to what I'm doing. I look at the world scientifically. Hence a hypothesis and not a theory. I am asking a question and don't have hard evidence one way or the other. I have a suspicion, which is where hypothesises get started. This is not libel, it's fact finding. Were I to…

[deleted]

Re: Judge tosses Apple motion, allows patent troll Lodsys to continue rampage

#40

Post by legalparanoia »

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #9
dctoedt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why hasn't anyone addressed the probable criminal activity going on with these handful of judges in this one district of Texas? ... My hypothesis is there's a payoff racket going on. There's a multi level system setup with a few insiders who know how to pay off the local judges to dismiss certain cases. Careful there. Unless you've got more than a hypothesis, what you're saying borders on the libelous. (Not that a…

This is the definition of "What the fuck." Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum, just because he's talking about a judge? He didn't threaten anybody.

>Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum, just because he's talking about a judge?

annoying people whose career is in the application of state force is not a wise thing to do

Post reply on HN