It would be like suing a grocery store because Microsoft word violated you're spell check patent.

They only go after like guys who can't fight back.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-05-25/the-te...

URL: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxcc3SM_KA (John Olivier)

Above two YouTube videos I’ve been passing around in regard to sometimes peculiar nature of patents law in US and in particular that of eastern district of TX.

Also, before you propose something like Esperanto; that language appears to be the antithesis of what I'd prefer as a replacement. The general design goals being more:

* a 'RISC' (rather than CISC) style use of verbal pallet (pick the most common international phonetics, not a regional 'good enough' set)

* purely phonetic spelling and pronunciation (one exact way to spell or say anything and vice versa)

* never mutate words for any reason (no tenses, conjugation, etc)

* no pronouns (only use proper nouns or descriptive selections)

* eliminate filler where possible (the, a, similar non-informational words); this would be more of an accepted grammar shift. If there is a reason for that use then more distinct and/or obvious reasons for using a replacement mechanism should be apparent and taught in standard education.

The spelling is pretty bad, though. I'm guessing that even if you managed to clean up the spelling, it would be a temporary fix. Pronunciations change over time, and vary between dialects.

All the letter (and sounds) used NEED to be pronounced, the same way, for native speakers of English, French, Russian, Spanish, and also various major (eastern) Asian languages. That means that when an otherwise uneducated (in languages/reading the squiggly version of words from a dictionary) user in one of those languages tries to read one of the words it should sound like only a slight accent, not a major flub.

J should never have been used.

"14 Latin letters, a e i j k l m n o p s t u w, are used to write the language. They have the same values as in the International Phonetic Alphabet:[38] j sounds like English y, and the vowels are like those of Spanish or Italian. Capital initials are used to mark proper adjectives, while Toki Pona roots are always written with lowercase letters, even when they start a sentence.[39]"

--

Edit about the difference in vowels/etc: If there isn't a common ground in notation for symbols, then the writing for the language CAN'T map back to any existing phonetic symbol system either. It MAY use existing non-phonetic symbols and assign new uses for them, but it MUST NOT reuse such symbols that have conflicted mappings in existing languages.

Do you mean all the phonemes need to be present in all of the referenced languages, or that they need to be indicated by the same letter or letter combination in each language? Because, the former doesn't leave a lot, and the latter is even worse, even if you choose the most popular current transliteration for those languages for which the Latin alphabet isn't the usual one.

This constraint effectively removes vowels from your phonetic inventory.

-As the "mcsmith.blogs" article mentions, the letter briefing process the EDTX had used was recommended by the Federal Judicial Center as a case management strategy in patent cases.

-The suggestion that EDTX does not grant summary judgment for patent challengers is incorrect. It granted between ~10-30% of such challenges each year between 2008-2017. (source DocketNavigator - a data aggregator on patent cases).

[as an aside, part of the legal standard for summary judgment is that there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact." This can be difficult to meet in patent cases. For example, think of all the factual questions involved in determining whether a patent is invalid (e.g., has this specific thing ever existed before or is it obvious) or infringed (e.g., does this specific thing meet the limitations of this patent)].

This makes the 10-30% number of little meaning, because there's a whole of of summary judgements that got a forbidden marker. They're not in the set of summary judgements granted, because there was no motion. The motion never happened because they were forbidden from being filed. So what's the real percentage? Do we know how many summary judgements never got filed because the judges never let them get filed?

So you're fighting in the lower court because you need to fight there. Remember, it's the fight that costs money, so no matter what you're always on the hook for something.

The question ends up being are you on the hook for the cost of the fight or the cost of paying them off.

Only after the expense of trial (and some people see the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent appeals, as being run by renegades, too), and the appeals process is deferential to the trial court in a number of ways, so this is time consuming, expensive, and still doesn't undo completely any tilt from the trial court.

So we can understand that the first line of rule 56 is a lie in the eastern district of texas.

Summary judgement is cheap (well, relative to litigation, that is), fast and occurs early in the development of the lawsuit before the most expensive steps take place.

It is a direct competitor to just paying the trolls their settlement amount to stop bothering you.