The standard for permissible arguments in court is having a good faith basis in law or fact, or a good faith argument for extending or changing the law. It's not clear to me that's wrong. Fee-splitting with non-lawyers is the bigger issue. That is impermissible for all sorts of good reasons.
Out of (sincere) curiosity, what are some of those reasons? Thanks.
That's for the bar to decide. But what do you mean "... at all" ?
The sad truth is that many hard working companies have had to fork over thousands of dollars to law firms that happen to hold patents but which don't have any means or even intent to deploy the inventions in those patents. These law firms simply exist to extract money by virtue of holding vaguely-worded garbage patents. THAT's what a patent troll is and THAT is improper.
What’s improper about creating liquidity in the market for inventions? And patents don’t require the holder to make or sell anything—they give the holder the right to prevent others from doing so.
And it's not creating liquidity in the market for inventions. It's creating liquidity in state-sanctioned and enforced monopoly rights of inventions.
And the biggest companies in the world aren't the biggest because they have patent protected monopolies.
I think it's improper for someone not using IP or not the original developer of IP to be able to make IP claims. If you didn't develop the tech or aren't using the tech, you shouldn't have any claim over the usage of that tech.
The same goes for "defensive" patent strategies. They're an affront to the spirit of patents.
Congress, the Supreme Court, and hundreds of years of precedent would disagree.
assert_eq!(legal, moral || ethical || proper)
> thread 0 panicked>That's for the bar to decide.
and the bar decided those guys did nothing wrong ...