John W. Kennedy wrote: > Pueblo Native wrote: >> jonathon wrote: >>> You are forgetting the anti-SLAPP statutes. Any patent >>> related litigation on unenforcible patents will be viewed as >>> being nothing more than a SLAPP. > >> Isn't that assuming that the case will be filed in a California >> court? There is no such SLAPP law on the federal books. > > No, but there are common-law rules about frivolous and vexatious > suits, waiting to be applied, and we can all pray that SCO v. IBM be > the occasion of these rules being reawakened. > > >
The closest thing on the federal books is Noerr-Pennington, and if Microsoft somehow manages to convince a judge that they are acting "in good faith", that goes out the windows. And frivolous and vexatious are not terms that are just thrown out there. They are one of the most grave insults a judge can throw on you. It's not just that you lack merit; it's saying "go back to the short bus and quit wasting our time." As such, it's not a common charge. Given that, I'm not about to think Microsoft's attorneys are that stupid. If they do go to court, I'm sure they've gone through ALL the due dilligence required and then some. Don't get me wrong, I don't want Microsoft to win (or even think it has a chance), but I think that it might be a lot easier to either dismiss those patent claims as invalid for vagueness or non-enforcement than it would be to launch an offensive effort such as a SLAPP. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
