This week, we’re going to go out of order again, since we’ve got a good discussion with our first place winner in the middle — sandwiched by two good editor’s choices. On our post about friend-of-patent-trolls Judge Rodney Gilstrap crafting an incredibly broad set of conditions for having patent cases heard in East Texas, aerinai offered up our first editor’s choice for insightful with some thoughts on the impact this will have:
Goodbye East Texas Jobs
So let’s assume for a second this is allowed to stand…. All I’m hearing is it is dangerous as a company to have business dealings or employees in East Texas…
Assume for a moment that you are a tech company that has to litigate this nonsense. Wouldn’t it make more sense for me to lay off my East Texas workforce (especially in remote instances like this) to lower my risk? Be cheaper to fly in a sales person every week than ‘establish residence’.
If you live in East Texas, say goodbye good paying jobs, courtesy of your one and only Judge Gilstrap!
In response to that, we’ve got our first place winner for insightful — Anonymous Anonymous Coward going ahead and taking the idea one step further:
Not only that, but websites will probably block IP addresses assigned to East Texas because Judge Gilstrap will interpret that that constitutes having a business in East Texas. He appears to be quite imaginative in not only his patent case rulings, but in his interpretation of SCOTUS rulings.
Funny what power does to logic. Or, maybe not so funny.
And then, in response to that, we’ve got our second editor’s choice for insightful from Paul Brinker, offering a capper to the discussion:
I have to agree with this. As a business owner I would restrict all travel, business, and customers from East Texas.
I would go so far as make this a public corporate policy.
This way they would have to make some new test like “My Website can be seen from Texas” which will quickly fail in higher courts.
And now all that remains on the insightful side is our second place winner, a very simple anonymous comment in response to this week’s good news about the dismissal of Shiva Ayyadurai’s lawsuit against us:
Congratulations!
Over on the funny side, our first place winner comes yet again in response to that very first comment about Judge Gilstrap’s patent test, anonymously chiming in:
What is this east texas you speak of? It seems I can’t find it on google maps any longer.
In second place, we’ve got a response from TechDescartes to the convoluted nightmare of Spotify streaming licensing:
Troll-kien
One license to rule them all,
one license to find them,
One license to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ve got a pair of anonymous comments. The first came in response to the Screen Actors Guild’s strained attempts to stop IMDB from publishing facts about actors, offering a possible explanation:
Explanation for illogical arguments
“I’m not a competent legal scholar, but I play one on TV.”
And the second was a very British response to UK terrorism law reviewer Max Hill’s anti-encryption comments:
Had to check twice, but
Mr. Hill’s first name is indeed Max, not Benny.
That’s all for this week, folks!
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon