« Rick Frenkel takes the stand in Troll Tracker defamation lawsuit | Main | Troll Tracker defamation case settles before going to jury »

September 18, 2009



I wonder if, outside of East Texas, harm to Ward and Albritton's reputations could be worth over $1 in damages?


Well, the filing date DID change, per my understanding. If changing it was an innocent attempt to fix a glitch, how can it also be a crime?

So far, he's the only one I've ever seen refer to the change as "criminal."

Before this, I figured he was just a crafty lawyer. Because of his lawsuit and his conduct during the lawsuit, I now believe the man is a sleazebag. And if that word has any literal meaning, please note that I mean it in the hyperbolic sense.

Frankly, there are lots of other words I want to use to describe that person, but I don't wish to drag myself down to his level.


FYI for the readership: What appears to be left out of the discussion is the overarching PR campaign by CISCO et al to manufacture a 'crisis' in the US patent system to (a) get a venue provision into the US code to would allow patent enforcement only in the home court of the defendant and (b) create a perception that the public was hostile to US patents so that the USPTO would feel a need to respond with a more aggressive reading the of the current patent reexamination statutes. But for the suit we are commenting on - the world would have never definitively known that CISCO et al - in addition to the full court press on capital hill, the courts and the executive branch - was manufacturing and feeding the 'public outrage' ergo the need for legislative, judicial and executive intervention in the US patent system. Create a blog innuendo, engage the blog-o-sphere for comment and take the comments as 'evidence' to capital hill to demonstrate the public outrage - working like a champ until you see the party behind the blog.


Just to comment back to iwasthere, I thought I'd add a quick-devil's advocate point.

As a member of the general public, why should I care who was behind the blog? It's well known that Microsoft hires people to do "grass roots" PR campaigns for them, and that's not criminal.

Sure, now we know Cisco supported this blog - but it doesn't change the fact that the date was changed on the filing.

If there should be any public outrage, it should be against the stupidity that this case was brought in the first place, and that a blogger who was reporting on public information should be silenced (no matter who was behind him.)


@iwasthere the public outrage over patents has been there a lot longer than this case. Your living in a dream world if you think people involved in the tech industries actually like patents. The fact that software developers are being told not to look at patents as that alone can pose a substantial risk to the company is proof enough to me that the system has failed.

Patents are not the repository of knowledge they were supposed to be, but just a big stick with which criminals like Ward and Albritton can extort money out of real innovators.

It didn't take Troll tracker for people to come to that conclusion. Just watching good companies being attacked by patent troll scum was enough.


Hmmm. So it sounds like he was trying to shut down free speech that is critical of their activity as representatives of trolls. Well they seemed to have done a good job of shutting that down.

Oh, and, it looks like he’s going to make a few bucks along the way.

Hmmm, he’s a lawyer without a product (e.g. a real legal) claim and he’s going to get money out of a real company (Cisco) from an East Texas jury. Where have I heard this before?

Dan Tobias

This reminds me of The New York Times v. Sullivan ( ), a classic '60s case where the Times was sued for publishing an ad that exposed Southern institutionalized racism, and the local yokels got a biased jury decision against them; it took the Supreme Court to correct this. In this case, the plaintiff is similarly playing to local prejudices against those mean outsiders who dare to call the place a "banana republic". Will it take another landmark Supreme Court decision to vindicate the First Amendment?


I am curious to find out Is Mc William believes also:" Is there not a part of this debate that talks often about large companies stealing the intellectual property of tiny companies that for only assets have just a patent?"

The comments to this entry are closed.