Update: my source is this mind blowing documentary called Patent Scam (on amazon prime) which mentioned this conflict of interest. It’s way too unbelievable, but I believe it is true because otherwise the movie maker would be sued like crazy if it was a lie.
Probably not; even if such a conflict has grown up during the EDTX dominance (and the risk of such a scheme being discovered is quite high -- litigants with lots at stake do, in fact, actively investigate for potential conflicts on the part of the judge -- and in addition to being likely to get everyone involved disbarred is one of the things that would be likely to get a US federal judge impeached, so it would take amazing gall to try it), the most famous judge in the district for handling large volumes of patent cases came to the bench in the district after it's dominance from being known as the "rocket docket" with short time from filing to resolution became known, and the various procedural rules that make the district (which has 7 district and 9 magistrate judges, its not a one-judge shop) plaintiff friendly are well-known.
Its much more likely that the Supreme Court case mentioned in the Ars article which sharply limits which districts a patent case can be filed in by clarifying that a corporation is "resident", for purposes of venue, only in that state in which it is actually incorporated is, in fact, what is altering venue selection for patent cases.
[3] gives a lot more information about the origin of the rules that made East Texas initially attractive, as well as how "there are signs [Gilstrap] is starting to crack down on patent trolls." It's a much more nuanced story, with a clear narrative of how judges acting in good faith might design rules like this to speed up litigation... and I'm unsure how much a judiciary can or should take into account e.g. parties' abilities to pay for discovery, one of the main contributors to the environment here [4], when deciding on those rules. Federal legislative reform would be the clearest path here, but that's hard to come by these days.
(I am not a lawyer.)
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/east-texas-judge...
[1] http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2011/05/j...
[2] https://www.velaw.com/Who-We-Are/Find-a-Lawyer/Gilstrap--Ste...
[3] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/aek3pp/the-small-...
[4] http://www.patentprogress.org/2014/05/21/popular-patent-judg...
In addition to the burden of discovery that you have mentioned, the fact that US allows an idea to be patented, is the root cause of this pain. Once that is addressed, innovation can thrive.
That's a truly terrible standard of evidence. The fact that a documentary maker hasn't been sued isn't evidence of anything.
The judges and other professionals working in the district are just that--professionals. There is no secret cabal of lawyers conspiring to screw tech companies there. The judges and courts are not biased against defendants and trying to screw them.
There may be a tendency of to protect the district (e.g., avoid transfers of cases out), since the judges see themselves as stewards of the community in which they serve. But that has no bearing on the merits of the case or who wins. And recent changes in the law have significantly mitigated this. The judges are very knowledgeable at patent law, being very experienced in the domain.
Source: Am a lawyer that has practiced over a decade there, represented both sides of the "v.", also appears in numerous other courts around the country, and has obtained multiple decisions from different EDTX judges forcing patent trolls to pay my clients' attorneys' fees for frivolous lawsuits.
I would have upvoted this post, but for the extensive complaint about downvotes; from the guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
In cases of what appear to be extremely abnormal voting behavior (asking a very simple, legitimate question and getting thrashed by downvotes), I regard it as a reasonable issue to raise.
It can be interesting to watch it play out.
A year ago, I rarely to never saw that kind of pattern, now every other thing I post is instantly downvoted, usually aggressively (even simple questions). I don't know what to make of it, except it drives me to not want to participate in discussions here.
The biggest downvote parade I think I've ever received on this site, was for defending gay rights a few months back. I upset a bunch of downvoters by discussing the facts of inequality globally around gay marriage (emphasis on that I was relying on facts, not emotional argumentation). How do you deal with that kind of intellectual mob mentality however? Do you ask for an explanation from the downvoters, or do you just leave the voting unchallenged? Sometimes it seems so bizarre, I can't help but ask.
...except it drives me to not want to participate in discussions here.
Sounds like the purpose of the behavior you’re describing.
1. Make sure I am actually being respectful and not an asshole.
2. Walk the fuck away and shut up sometimes.
3. I left for 18 months, to work on my issues and to give someone breathing room that I had friction with whom I felt saw me as personally threatening. I didn't have specific plans to return. I did return in part because posting something one day went better than I expected.
4. Drop it from my end when there is personal friction. This gets vastly better results when I point out someone is behaving poorly towards me. Sometimes they listen. If they don't, the mods (and community as a whole) are much more likely to be sympathetic if I am not putting out the fire with gasoline.
I routinely comment on hot button topics. I have extremely controversial views on some things. But I go out of my way to not piss on people to the best of my ability.
This has included changing my handle after hitting the leaderboard because I concluded that it didn't matter that it wasn't chosen as a feminist handle. What matters is that it is an overwhelmingly male forum and I want no appearance of impropriety as the first woman on the leaderboard. The perception of disrespect became apparent to me and was not something I wanted. So I started over.
I am vastly more satisfied with posting under this handle. Lots of people recognize me as also being Mz. So the difference is not due to being anonymous.
(This comment is not comprehensive. Just a nutshell version of 8.5 years of navigating an overwhelmingly male forum while posting as openly female.)
#3 is probably to specific to the specific circumstances to work as any kind of general guideine)
I can think of some folks who would be better off taking a break and sorting their personal problems rather than continuing to piss and moan about what meanies the mods are or whatever. I am far from the only person here whose personal issues are sometimes a significant part of the problem.
Oh, I certainly agree; what I meant would perhaps be more clearly expressed as "#3 probably has more need of rewriting into a more general form before being included as a general guideline"; recognizing and, where appropriate, taking an extended break to address personal issues is something that makes a good bit of general advice, the other three were just more in a form that worked as general advice without rewriting from the account of what had worked for you than that one was, IMO.
I struggle with that one. It's very useful sometimes though, agreed. It can be easy to fall into a discussion spiral that just goes negative all the way down, ending in frustration all around.
> 3. I left for 18 months
It's probably a good idea, broadly speaking, to take breaks from communities. If nothing else to just reassess time allocation to sites (whether HN or Reddit or whatever it may be). It surely helps with commenting perspective as well to step away. I too frequently find myself getting into low value political discussions on here, and that's my fault; I suspect it considerably lowers my enjoyment of HN.
I appreciate your reply, it was very thoughtful.
Based on that documentary, every case if filed on behalf of a shell company, many of which lead to the same bunch of attorneys. So, its not me saying, but the movie says so.
In that documentary, you can see the frustrations on many of those entrepreneurs and medium sized companies who have been screwed over by these scumbags.
Why dont most people hear about this? Because settlement includes NDA that prevents those who have been screwed over, to talk about how they have been screwed.