|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
Let's see if i can answer some of your questions.
1. Is there
anything that happens as a consequence of being 'pro-patent' that benefits the
EDoT? What do they get out of this?
I believe that judgements
begat judgements, in biblical speak. One case long ago in that district resulted
in a judgement favorable to patent holders, and it was used as precedent in
subsequent cases. The district doesn't really "get anything" from being "patent
friendly", it's just something that happened and is sort of self-perpetuating.
One other thing that I seem to remember, is that one of the local lawyers in the
town where the courthouse is located, who is hired by a lot of patent holders
when filing patent law suits, is the son of one of the district court judges
that handles a lot of patent lawsuits. Nothing has ever been formally alleged,
but rumors abound that the judge is favorable to his son's clients, and so more
favorable rulings come down as a result.
2. If the parties in
dispute both have headquarters in, say, California, what are the legal
requirements that have to be met before the case can be heard before an EDoT
judge?
I believe that most of the "patent troll" companies have
pseudo offices in the EDoT to help persuade the judges that venue is proper, and
since they have offices there, then they are allowed to sue any company that
"does business" in the EDoT as well, with the definition of "does business"
being that they've ever had a person from the EDoT ever visit their web site
(ok, maybe not that tenuous, but at times it seems like it).
3. If
the parties in dispute both have headquarters in California, why would an EDoT
judge be willing to hear the case? Why does relevant legal efficiency not
warrant relocating the case back to California?
See my answer to
# 2above, in that the patent trolls all maintain ghost offices in the
EDoT.
4. Given that EDoT now seems to have this reputation, why
don't defendants put up more resistance over venue when someone tries to sue
them there? I'm not
saying that they don't resist, only that EDoT seems to still
be getting plenty of business...
Some defendants do try to seek
change of venue, but the judge's have the final say. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
It may not be such a stronghold after all: Patent Defense Strikes Back"
This excerpt from law.com
more than hints that there has been
a change of practice closely tied in with
the departure of
hon. T. John Ward. Wonder were he is heading?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
Also remember that the juries are all local people and different locations
possess different cultural biases.
Impoverished individuals tend to vote against their interests because of the
psychological pressure of the "loss adverse" bias of the human brain.
In one study [citation needed, because I can't find it just now] a bunch of
people were given incrementally larger sums of money (e.g. $1, $2, $3, etc) and
then told that they each, accept for the $1 party, had to give one dollar to
either the person above them or the person below them in the ranking. It was
universally found that $2 guy gave the buck to $3 guy and just about everybody
on the lower end gave the money "up". The conclusion was that the less
money a person had the more they worried about losing their rank. (e.g. $2 guy
would never give his $1 to $1 guy because then $2 knew he'd be in a tie, but if
he gave his $1 to the guy above him there was a "fifty fifty" chance
he'd get a buck back and not even tie for last place. So anybody who gave their
money "down" was likely to change places with that person, so they
didn't do it.
Weird right?
So my guess is that East Texas' low income standards and its membership in
"the south", combined with its proximity to the previously "quite
oil rich" West Texas makes a perfect storm.
The "someone owes someone money so I vote for the exchange of damages"
effect is also quite high in people. People want to punish someone, anyone, when
they feel like they have nothing.
So taking a business damages case to a poor district, particularly when it's
right next to a much less poor district, is "just plain smart" as a
plaintiff.
The south also votes very Republican because dirt poor white people believe (and
believe me, I have had this conversation in person) (paraphrased to site
standards and to make it read less dumb) "Democrats are all on the side of
[various euphemisms for black persons] and what's good for them can not be good
for me".
People are -notorious-, world wide, for voting and acting against their own
personal interests because of various revenge fantasies or wish fulfillment
scenarios.
It's not so much that the locals want the plaintiffs to win, as they just want
someone to pay.
Same reason that similar regions are much more likely to convict in criminal
cases.
The south "loves them a hangin judge". The entire U.S. probably does
too, but the south has a tradition of saying it aloud. 8-)
IMHO of course. 8-)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|