decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
On what grounds? | 300 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
On what grounds?
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 | # ]

On what grounds?
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )