Monday, November 16, 2009

Lawyers in Juxtacomm v. Ascential

Had a few spare minutes at lunch six or seven weeks ago to Google up a few links related to this case and found that lawyers are beginning to tout their participation. At the time, I decided not to help the plaintiff by posting this, but that's moot now.

Here are a few of the items I found:

Akin Gump for the plaintiff you all know about.

The most interesting item is from CA's lawyer:

While this matter remains ongoing, CA was able to settle during discovery for an amount that was very beneficial to CA.
Hmm. CA owns InfoPump, which IBM was arguing as prior art. I guess the Teilhard management shills have to believe this guy's lying when he says "very beneficial."


I'm sure there will be more to follow now that this case has concluded.

Lest you think only Vincent McBurney and I believe the prior art arguments, here's yet another technical source who's mystified by Teilhard's patent trolling success so far.

Previous Teilhard thread.


Anonymous said...

LL great to see you are still at it! They say there are two sides to every story, well in this case there are more than two. I appreciate your posts from the dark side. Speaking of dark side, the view at the SpeakEasy is very good from there. Nice informal setting to watch the ballet.


lovable liberal said...

Good to hear from you, imaho. At least two sides...

I could use a trip to the SpeakEasy.

lovable liberal said...

There's a subthread here that responds to this post.

lovable liberal said...

Clarification in response to the response linked just above (whew!): The management shills were those posters on Toolbox (Vince McBurney's blog) who could never find any fault whatsoever with TH management.

So, HB, I guess you think the CA lawyer is lying. A "very beneficial" settlement amount would be one that cost less than going to trial and winning your defense. Going to trial is expensive, and settling is often a business decision to pay rather than face that greater expense. That may sound like legal extortion, but it's often how the patent system works in the U.S. (And I think that's bad.)

Fair point about the timing of the 2008 article. I could have been clearer, but getting '662 through the USPTO at all was an unwarranted success by the patent troll.

Anonymous said...

Hey LL,

I will try to leave the other blog site for posts that would be beneficial to the debate that obviously needs to happen for the investors, and respond on your site to things that those investors may not find useful to the cause. I hope this is alright with you.

For the record I have shares in Juxtacomm, and although I don't like some of the things that management has done, I'm not yet ready to join the mutiny called for by some. I may be yet persuaded though, so we'll see.

So to respond to your last post: I see that I mistook your meaning of "shills", my bad. Although you may have trouble finding someone who posted on Vincent's blog that NEVER found fault with management. I believe there may be a good number of people who, like myself, liked how things went but didn't like having to find out how it went from sources other than Teilhard.

I wouldn't say that the CA lawyer is lying, but that the term "very benificial" is open to interpretation. I'm sure that the settlement is viewed by CA as very beneficial, but couldn't the same be said of TH viewpoint? Could they not claim that the settlement was very beficial for TH? Settling with all the defendants means potentially easy prosecutions going forward. I think we'd have to see the numbers before we could accuse each side of lying.

If the review of the patent ends up in favor of TH, then would you still claim that getting '662 through the USPTO at all was an unwarranted success by the patent troll? This would imply that you know better than everyone else who has worked on the final decision.

My questions from last post are still up for debate. When you referenced the 2008 article, are you saying that IBM chose not to talk to this guy between Feb ‘08 and Oct ‘09? This seems to be rather dumb if IBM didn't at least talk to the guy. Or are you saying that they did talk to him and then came to the conclusion that his claims wouldn’t stand up in court? I think this to be the more likely scenario.

Finally, I hope it doen't seem like I'm just spewing venom, because I actually look forward to the debate. I think it helps me to evaluate where my investment is at and calculate the risks involved. Fankly with Vincent's blog the shareholders would have precious little info, (however we had to wade through way too much crap to get to anything worth reading). Even though I disagree with some of the things you say LL, I think that without differing opinions this world would be bloody boring.



lovable liberal said...

We don't know what the terms of IBM's settlement were, do we? Could have been very beneficial, too...

We also don't know what backing evidence Nigel had, nor whether in fact IBM might in fact have included him in its defense.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tcp said...

Uh, Deer crusher, yo in the wroonnng place.

lovable liberal said...

Yeah, tcp, so I've told him, but the guy has deep mental health issues, especially with a black man running the country.