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
ROFL - so even Lawyers don't know the Law..... | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
ROFL - so even Lawyers don't know the Law.....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 24 2013 @ 01:55 PM EDT

This is all my humble opinion of course.

The Lawyers don't know!

That's what I get from your issue with my assertion that the Plaintiff Patent Attorney should know the history of the Patent.

I love it:

    Us experts in the field of what's being patented are not qualified to understand the Patent filing because the Patent is filed under the Art and Terms of Law
...
    But apparently it's gotten so obtuse and confusing that the Patent Lawyers can't understand it either
That's some mess the Patent Lawyers have created for themselves. And given they are they ones attempting to keep it status quo (or worse, change to get even more patentable such as math) they are the only ones that can hold the responsibility to clean it up.

Of course.... that's the irony with human rules. Unless people are held to the rules with sufficient disciplinary action available to deter people from breaking the rules:

    There will always be those who deliberately break the rules because they see the rules as optional!
Using your own logic:
we have an adversarial system [snip] Its the other guys job to find those
That doesn't change the reality that a Fraud is being committed.

It's one thing when you have two people with two different honest perspectives presenting their particular perspective for someone else to decide. This is the basics for a Civil dispute.

But when you have someone deliberately mis-representing something - it should no longer be considered a civil dispute - and the one committing the fraud should be held accountable to that in ways beyond what the Courts commonly apply:

    not allowed to present evidence
    adverse ruling where plaintiff's patent is held invalid
When the "disciplinary measures" stop there... it's not a disincentive - merely a "cost of doing business" because if they get sufficient licensing to pay for that one moment where their patent is invalidated - they break even.

And given the basic costs of defending against a patent infringment claim - I'd be surprised if any Patent Troll has not succeeded in generating a profit off those who are innocent of infringment but can not afford a full Court Defense.

RAS

[ 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 )