News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on We Stood Up to a Patent Troll and Won. Parent comment

Re:We Stood Up to a Patent Troll and Won by rayiner on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:30PM (#21449058)
What is a "disingenuous argument?" Is it like reading the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" to mean something less than that based on a clearly set-off explanatory clause in front? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We Stood Up to a Patent Troll and Won by kevin_thibedeau on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:41PM (#21449106)
Court officers take an oath not to waste the court's time. Knowingly advancing baseless claims that are only meant to scare a victim into settling is a violation of that oath. This isn't hard stuff. The priesthood just doesn't want to hold its members accountable.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We Stood Up to a Patent Troll and Won by rayiner on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:53PM (#21449167)
My point is that "disingenuous" sweeps quite a bit more broadly than "baseless."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We Stood Up to a Patent Troll and Won by areyousure on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @05:20PM (#21468177)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We Stood Up to a Patent Troll and Won by notSupplied on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @01:47AM (#21460288)
If it was so obvious, why did you omit the clause?
[ Parent | on HN ]