bspatafora

Thank you for posting this. I haven't been here all that long, and it has (honestly) been scaring me how extreme and often simplistic the political views of the intelligent and relatively (or quite) powerful people here seem to be.

> I think the "victims" of the patent troll should seek their own remedy, by filing a cause of action including but not limited to tortious interference with business contracts and relationships (not to mention challenging the patent itself).

I don't think it's reasonable to expect all or even many of the victims to have the resources to devote to challenging this kind of thing, especially considering that MPHJ Technology is certainly not the only patent troll out there. Having a state AG take action makes it more of a fair fight.

I posted this in response to another comment here (FWIW):

Here in the US, it's very difficult to prevail on a claim of either slander or libel (vis-a-vis many European countries), thanks to the First Amendment. While NYT Co may (may) be in the right regarding their first C&D, I would be shocked if they were to prevail on the second.

Here in the US, it's very difficult to prevail on a claim of either slander or libel (vis-a-vis many European countries), thanks to the First Amendment. While NYT Co may (may) be in the right regarding their first C&D, I would be shocked if they were to prevail on the second.

He is clear that he complied with the first C&D, which asked him to remove the infringing content. His post is primarily about their second letter, which demanded he remove two sentences that simply make reference to "Snow Fall."