I noticed in the recent
article on the Shield Act a comment left by someone that thinks the Shield
Act is to:
shielding large invention thieves from small would
be competitors
Love the wording. At first I initially read it as
"shielding large companies against small" but that's not what it actually says
upon closer reading.
I thought that an interesting angle till I got down
to the pro-software-patent meme:
It all means one thing: "we're
using your invention and we're not going to pay or stop."
And I
realized the opponents of the Shield Act - those that will be most negatively
affected, the trolls - are martialing their arguments against the Act.
So
one of the arguments they'll be presenting is that the Shield Act will only
protect "innovation thieves". No actual explanation as to why it's bad to have
the plaintiff pay the defendants costs when it's clear the plaintiff didn't have
a case. Just that it's bad.
Meanwhile... it's dressed up as something
triggered by non-American multi-nationals:
The fact is, many of the
large multinationals who defame inventors in this way themselves make no
products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant
theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do
so.
Love the irony:
Have no actual valid reason to say why it's
bad to make a plaintiff that has no case pay for the defendant's costs. But try
and draw on American Patriotism to try and stop something that will affect
lawsuits initiated by Americans against Americans.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|