Thank you for posting this. I haven't been here all that long, and it has (honestly) been scaring me how extreme and often simplistic the political views of the intelligent and relatively (or quite) powerful people here seem to be.
What scares me is how far the US has fallen, how little regard the have for privacy and even human rights (e.g. Gitmo, Pakistan, etc.) but people like you still take offense that someone might imagine that the government might be out of control. Of course they're fucking out of control, get your head out of your goddamn ass.
> I think the "victims" of the patent troll should seek their own remedy, by filing a cause of action including but not limited to tortious interference with business contracts and relationships (not to mention challenging the patent itself).
I don't think it's reasonable to expect all or even many of the victims to have the resources to devote to challenging this kind of thing, especially considering that MPHJ Technology is certainly not the only patent troll out there. Having a state AG take action makes it more of a fair fight.
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the individuals have legal rights in addition to the AG, it is not as though the AG can not move forward because an individual party is enforcing their legal rights.
As far as resources, you are correct, that is why the troll in this case went after end users, because they are less likely to have the resources to defend or initiate a legal action; however, the manufacturers of the copy machines have standing and resources to protect their IP and business interests that the troll is tortiously interfering with, same with the retailers.
Exactly. I am pleasantly surprised to see the AG taking up causes for his citizens. I remember a time when my parents wrote complaints to their AG. Perhaps those aren't such bygone actions.
I posted this in response to another comment here (FWIW):
Here in the US, it's very difficult to prevail on a claim of either slander or libel (vis-a-vis many European countries), thanks to the First Amendment. While NYT Co may (may) be in the right regarding their first C&D, I would be shocked if they were to prevail on the second.
Here in the US, it's very difficult to prevail on a claim of either slander or libel (vis-a-vis many European countries), thanks to the First Amendment. While NYT Co may (may) be in the right regarding their first C&D, I would be shocked if they were to prevail on the second.
Very true. For libel or slander to make it to court, the plaintiff needs to show that the defendant knew his/her statement to be false. I got a hard lesson in this back in the 90s when I got sued for $2.5m.
In-house counsel is such a pain is butt. I'm dealing with John Deere's law-talkers right now and I feel for you... I'm willing to bet anyone associated with creative at the Times could give a rat's ass about your site... but the lawyers... they have to justify their existence.
It's harder in the US than many European companies, because it's not slander/libel if the information is true. However, if the information is false, than the Times could have a case.
He is clear that he complied with the first C&D, which asked him to remove the infringing content. His post is primarily about their second letter, which demanded he remove two sentences that simply make reference to "Snow Fall."