|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
Unless the remaining patents are deemed assets and are assigned to Oracle in
payment in lieu of lack of money from Lodsys.
CC :>)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
But it's impossible to prove they should have
known the patent were
invalid
Really?
Perhaps they ought to have used a search
engine, say Google, to find possible prior art to check out the validity of the
patents before they acquired (sic) the patents (sic) and used them in
litigation against another.
If another, a defendant, for example, does use a
search engine (or other search method) and finds invalidating prior art then
clearly they could have also done so and known the patents were invalid; to have
failed to do so is surely negligence of the highest degree? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 04:35 AM EDT |
Reminds me of British & Commonwealth (B&C) back in 1990.
Its main problem was the liabilities of B&C's computer leasing Subsidiary
Atlantic Computers which B&C was relying on the principle of limited
liability by allowing the subsidiary to go into administration and hoping to
"write-off" the liability. Unfortunately, this didn't work and
B&C soon also went into administration. [Accounting for Growth, Terry Smith,
(C) 1992, ISBN 0-7126-5764-9]
Are the "shell" companies subsidiaries?
How separate are they from their investors, especially when the investors are
companies (and when those companies may have provided the assets as capital
[equity])?
22 years after B&C's collapse, has financial law changed in a way that makes
parent companies not so liable for subsidiary companies?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
