It made me stop reading for quite a while. I was trying
to decide if Judge A
was calling Boies a patent troll. He
_is_ very direct.
Judge:
Didn't the Danger license cover the trademark too?
Boies: I suppose it did,
but it clearly covered the
specification license.
Judge: Well, I still
question your premise. Now it may be
that they agreed to a license, in the same
way both of these
companies have agreed to a patent from a troll, even though
it's completely invalid, just because it's not worth
fighting.
A few lines farther down, the judge says Boies is
engaged in
classic overreaching:
Judge: If you have a doc in
plain English that says that
this particular method will return the larger of 2
numbers,
and you gave that, looked in textbooks, you would find
examples of
that very exercise. Teaching young people in
college how to do perform that
writing various forms of
code.
And to decide you own every implementation
of that code just
because you came up with the idea, that's classic
over-
reaching.
Boies: That's not what we're trying to say. And
I'm
probably not explaining well.
I've got to believe that at
Boies' level, if he isn't
explaining things well, it is probably on purpose,
and he is
trying to mislead the judge. I have a feeling that it isn't
working
too well with this judge.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
