|
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
No.
The point is, if it is a thinly capitalised company, which appears to have been
set up in order to sue, and has no assets with which to pay any judegment
against it, then it's a troll.
And if it's a troll, the lawyers are committing barratry, if I've got my terms
right.
Your example of "Company X" wouldn't come anywhere near my example.
They have a business that is nothing to do with patents, a revenue stream that
is nothing to do with patents, and are suing to protect that business.
But if a company's assets are ONLY its patents, and if its business modus
operandi is suing, and if it only has enough money to fund lawsuits, then
anybody helping it should at least be suspected of "litigation as a
business" which should be / is illegal.
And lawyers should at least do a cursory inspection of their client's business,
assets, and reason for suing ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: globularity on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 12:07 AM EDT |
If the lawyers are incapable of doing enough due diligence to take on a patent
case as an acceptable risk what business do they have suing non lawyers for
infringement of something even they do not understand.
Denying someone with a questionable case the right to impose their half baked
theories on someone else is an equitable outcome.
---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|