|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
Not to the judge, necessarily, but to the press.
They could just as easily have written footnote 1 like this:
"In this motion, unless otherwise indicated, the phrase
"Mountain Lion" includes both Mountain Lion and any future
infringing versions of OS X." Or they could have, you know,
moved their fingers and typed "and any future infringing
versions of OS X" a few times in the body of the motion,
which wouldn't have taken them much longer than typing
Footnote 1.
Typical troll tactic, be as confusing as possible. They're
counting on the press to read the motion but not very
carefully. You'll see headlines stating that "OS X
infringes, claims lawuit". Which not only makes it sound
like Apple might have to pay even more Beellions than if
"Mountain Lion infringes", but more ordinary people (Apple
customers and Apple shareholders) know what "OS X" is than
know what "Mountain Lion" is. Now that Apple is actually
fighting in court, the troll's strategy is to be as annoying
as possible. A drop in Apple's share price due to spooked
investors might not make Apple settle this suit, but anybody
else the troll approaches will factor this example into the
"nuisance value" being extorted.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hanlon's Razor - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 06:47 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
to any future, infringing revisions
Sorry, tongue in
cheek still seems to be in my blood today.
At least I hope they're not
actually trying to sue for a product not created yet..... although it wouldn't
surprise me if someone did actually try that.
Plaintiff:
Ladies and
Gentlemen of the Jury. You've seen the evidence. The defendant plans on making
a product 30 years from now that will implement the patented invention. They
have clearly stated they have absolutely no intention of paying for a license!
You must find them guilty of patent infringement and make them
pay!
Defendant:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. What can I say other
then the patent will terminate in 5 years. The patent won't be
valid!
Jury:
We find the defendant guilty and must pay $1.3
Billion!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 05:03 AM EDT |
"Unless otherwise stated, the term 'outrageous falsehood' shall include
defining terms contrary to how they have been used by the brand holder and
the market in general for a decade or so"
You're right, I didn't read the footnote in that wall of text , as will
approximately
none of the press. I doubt the effect they seek is anything other than confusion
in their favour, possibly even in the mind of the judge.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 05:04 AM EDT |
"Unless otherwise stated, the term 'outrageous falsehood' shall include
defining terms contrary to how they have been used by the brand holder and
the market in general for a decade or so"
You're right, I didn't read the footnote in that wall of text , as will
approximately
none of the press. I doubt the effect they seek is anything other than confusion
in their favour, possibly even in the mind of the judge.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
