Judge Makes Lawyers Pay For Frivolous Patent Suit 263
Gallenod writes "The Denver Post is reporting that the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the decision of a Federal judge who threw out and reversed a jury decision in favor of a patent infringement claim and ordered the plaintiff's lawyers to pay the defendants' court costs. U.S. District Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch sanctioned the plaintiff's attorneys for 'cavalier and abusive' misconduct and for having a 'what can I get away with?' attitude during a 13-day patent infringement trial in Denver. With the Appeals Court in agreement, could this case be the 'shot heard round the world' in the revolution against patent trolls?"
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Aha, first post?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The judges also have a large amount of say in the verdict, though there they have to follow precedent and the law; if a jury tries to award an absurdly high (or low) amount of money (based on precedent) the judge can throw out or modify the verdict within the scope of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
jury nullification? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Refreshing but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There's always Cowboy Neal, the USSR, Linux, and a beowolf cluster of hot grits. And Microsoft, spelled with a "$". And don't forget the iPoop.
Ok, is there anybody left I haven't offended with this inane comment?
You forgot me! (Score:5, Funny)
...you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
humor gets YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
there's always Jack Thompson and Duke Nukem!
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
And the appeals court backed him up! Holy crap! I guess that's one way to deal with stupid juries and slick lawyers...Get some decent judges who aren't willing to put up with the crap.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge hears all the evidence and concludes that it's not even close the defendant should win.
If he dismisses the case before it goes to the jury he can be certain that it will be appealed. If he lets the jury come back with a verdict in favor of the plaintiff it likely ends there. When this goes wrong and the jury returns an obviously stupid verdict the judge overrules it knowing that there will be an appeal but the defendant is
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, the important difference that this glosses over is that if the judge enters a decision prior to the verdict (a judgement as a matter of law), rather than overturning the jury verdict, if there is an appeal and the judge's decision is thrown out on appeal, it can require a empaneling a new jury and trying the case again. Whereas, if the jury returns a verdict and the judge enters a JNOV and that is appealed, the original jury verdict still exists and can be entered (or modified less radically.)
Re: (Score:2)
Judges should be elected from amongst the most trustworthy citizens with legal education. "12 angry men" my butt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only because some citizens do everything possible to not get on a jury. As the old joke goes, juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. (How many times have you done your civic duty and served on a jury?)
If we picked our government at random from the citizens things wouldn't be as fucked up as they are tod
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the known flaw in democracy - voters are generally just voting for the guy who their parents voted for/has the best hair/looks like them - they are not voting on issues. That's why we have representatives (senators, mps, call them what you like) whose job is to actually know what the fuck they're voting about.
Unfortunately on that last point there's a small problem
Re: (Score:2)
So, hm, you don't care much for the "trial by jury" thing?
Oh, you do? But only when you agree with the verdict?
There's a word for that sort of system.... I can't think of it atm.
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No impact on patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No impact on patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No impact on patents (Score:5, Informative)
-Peter
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Loser pays is pad policy (Score:5, Informative)
The fun part for the lawyer would be when he started running commercials stating anyone who was injured by glass in MegaFoodCorp's products should call him to see about joining a class action lawsuit. Hell, just the thought of commercials like that would have MegaFoodCorp shitting their pants and offering high 6 figure settlements. After all, look what happened to Wendy's after the "finger in the chili". They were hurt badly, with sales down for months. And, no one was hurt in that one.
It would go more like this:
Average Joe: I want to sue MegaFoodCorp.
Lawyer: Why?
Average Joe: There was glass in the food I bought from them. It severally cut my throat and stomach, I had to be rushed to hospital for surgery. I missed 3 weeks of work and lost my job. Now I have $80,000 hospital bill that I can't pay. Also since I lost my job my house is in forclosure and my wife left me.
Lawyer: I will take 30% of what we get. *calls MegaFood*
Lawyer: Hi, we are suing you. We have evidence of glass contamination resulting in injury. We will be running commercials nationally to find other victims.
MegaFood Lawyer: We will give you 600,000 shut up, never speak of this again, and go away.
Lawyer: ChaChing!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Law is a slow beast to change, by design (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's still illegal to drive a motor vehicle through my town after dark unless two men bearing lanterns walk in front of it. Does this mean that could change soon?
Yippee!
Did I miss something? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps there's a clearer report out there?
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I read the same article. That's not how I read it. There were apparently 2 problems.
1) The lawsuit was frivolous and that caused the judge to set aside the jury verdict. The jury blew it, but they us
Separate the Patent from the Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing you have to remember is that (with rare exceptions) the court is only going to go with the arguments that each side presents. It is not the judge's or jury's job to go out and collect evidence and make up a decision, it is instead their job to decide the case based on the evidence actually submitted and arguments actually made by opposing parties (this is called the "adversarial system"). Even if the plaintiff may have had a case, if these lawyers went out and did a completely shitty job of presenting it, presented no real evidence, and made no real legal arguments, then they can and will lose the case. The extra sanctions here are quite unusual, and go beyond the negative consequences of just not doing a good job of lawyering. I think that these "respected litigators" were probably ignoring the judge's instructions and committing other infractions that REALLY pissed the judge off. On appeal, the court does NOT hear new facts, so the appeals court went with the factual record and judgment of the District Court judge on this one.
Judge Matsch in the news (Score:5, Informative)
Keep hacking away at it! (Score:2, Funny)
Details? (Score:2)
But, this is Slashdot, guilty as charged...
Judge Make Lawyers Pay For Frivolous Patent Suit (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Judge Make Lawyers Pay For Frivolous Patent Sui (Score:5, Funny)
Why you make fun of article? Hulk work hard on article! Not easy. Many long words. Hulk hands big, computer keys tiny!
Re:Judge Make Lawyers Pay For Frivolous Patent Sui (Score:2)
Narrow the scope perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
Not until/unless (take your pick) US legal jurisdiction extends round the world - on an official level!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "shot heard round the world" refers to the shots fired at Lexington and Concord that started the American Revolutionary War. It is metaphor for something that starts a major change. It does not mean that it will effect the entire world.
Judge Matsch's opinion and order (Score:5, Informative)
D. Colorado.
MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Sofamor Danek Holdings, Inc., St. Louis University, and Trustees of Dartmouth College, Plaintiffs,
v.
BRAINLAB MEDIZINISCHE COMPUTERSYSTEMS GMBH, Brainlab AG, Brainlab USA, Inc., and Brainlab, Inc., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 98-cv-01072-RPM.
Feb. 12, 2008.
Anthony Lawrence Giacomini, Sean Connelly, Daniel M. Reilly, Hoffman, Reilly, Pozner & Williamson, L.L.P., Conor Fitzgerald Farley, Lee Frederick Johnston, Holland & Hart, LLP, Denver, CO, J. James Li, Vera M. Elson, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Krista Leigh Vink Venegas, McDermott, Will & Emery, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt A. Luther, Leslie I. Bookoff, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, DC, David W. Harlan, Senniger Powers, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs.
James Edward Hartley, Holland & Hart, LLP, Denver, CO.
Jay R. Campbell, John J. Del Col, Joshua M. Ryland, Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, Kyle B. Fleming, Cleveland, OH, L. Andrew Cooper, Marc David Flink, Thomas H. Shunk, Baker & Hostetler, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
ORDER FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO BRAINLAB DEFENDANTS
RICHARD P. MATSCH, Senior District Judge.
*1 The defendants (collectively BrainLAB) seek to recover all of their attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of this suit for patent infringement, contending that it was filed and prosecuted not to protect the technology protected by the patent claims but to drive a competitor out of a market for an emerging technology for application in the navigation of surgical instruments in procedures requiring exquisite precision, as in the removal of a brain tumor. Medtronic Navigation, Inc. (Medtronic) and its predecessor Surgical Navigation Technologies, Inc. (SNT) marketed variations of a device called "StealthStation" in competition with BrainLAB's "VectorVision" devices. The accused devices can be described as passive optical systems in contrast to an active acoustic system. That contrasting technology was at the core of this case.
BrainLAB contends that it is entitled to fees and costs because this is an exceptional case justifying relief under 35 U.S.C. 285; that plaintiffs' lead counsel should be held responsible under 28 U.S.C. 1927 and that the Court should grant the motion in the exercise of its inherent authority to protect the integrity of the processes of adjudication. Upon reflection, this Court finds and concludes that the rulings on the claims construction issues adjudicated the fairly debatable issues in this case and that the manner in which plaintiffs' counsel continued the prosecution of the claims through trial was in disregard of their obligations as officers of the court. The fairness of the adversary system of adjudication depends upon the assumption that trial lawyers will temper zealous advocacy of their client's cause with an objective assessment of its merit and be candid in presenting it to the court and to opposing counsel. When that assumption has been contradicted by a trial record of conduct reflecting a winning is all that is important approach to the trial process, the court has a duty to redress this resulting harm to the opposing party.
BrainLAB has made a plausible argument that this entire civil action was frivolous. The chronology of the suit must be viewed against the backdrop of developments in the field of image-guided surgical navigation technology.
In approximately 1991, SNT began development of an image-guided surgical navigation product. SNT worked with Dr. Richard Bucholz of St. Louis University. SNT also collaborated with Dr. Peter Heilbrun of the University of Utah. In 1994, SNT obtained rights to the application for patent that issued as U.S. Patent No. B1 5,383,454 to Bucholz (the 454 Patent or the Bucholz Patent). The claims of that patent relate to a system that depends on the activation of sound emitters on a surgical instrument and the pati
Could this case be the 'shot' against trolls? (Score:5, Informative)
"After the court issued its claim construction rulings, Medtronic's counsel proceeded cavalierly, with reckless indifference to the merits of Medtronic's infringement claims," Matsch wrote."
"Matsch said the McDermott lawyers willfully ignored his rulings on claim construction in their arguments before a Colorado jury in 2005. In patent cases, those orders define the scope of the patents and, therefore, what the plaintiff's lawyers can argue for infringement."
"The judge said in his Tuesday ruling that while McDermott paid lip service to the orders, the lawyers improperly pointed the jury toward Medtronic's broad reading of the patents. McMahon also made comparisons of the two companies' products, the StealthStation and VectorVision, instead of comparing Medtronic's patents to BrainLAB's product, "contrary to established law," Matsch wrote."
Summary for lawyers [law.com]
In the anatomy of the typical patent case, there is
1. The filing of a suit
2. Discovery
3. A so-called "Markman hearing" to resolve disputes between the litigants as to the meaning of disputed terms or phrases within the patent claims
4. Summary judgment motions
5. A trial (bench or jury)
6. Post-verdict motions
7. Appeal
If you read through the judge's ruling, or even the law.com article, it's apparent that the judge believed that the trial was unnecessary, and that the case could and should have been resolved by summary judgment (and any subsequent appeal). If the case had ended at this point, there would likely be no talk of sanctions or the like. Therefore the answer to the question at the end of the summary is no.
All the rest relates to the judge's determination that 1. the platintiff's attorneys misrepresented the state of the case in their briefs opposing the motions for summary judgment that would have ended the trial phase and 2. the plaintiff's attorneys disregarded both his rulings in case and unequivocable legal standards for what does and does not constitute patent infringement.
To use bad sports analogies, this ruling is the red card or the technical foul called on the field, not a warning that the team should never have attempted to play the game.
Re:Could this case be the CourtROOM sonic BOOM? (Score:2)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_Dec_31/ai_n21176158 [findarticles.com]
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:MDT&morenews=10&rating=1&origin=71 [google.com]
Probably baaad news for Medtronic?
They might need to sign up for voluntary procedure at or products from Medasonic.
http://www.cja-jca.org/cgi/reprint/41/4/281.pdf [cja-jca.org]
Maybe Judge Matsch's ruling see inCubation in courtrooms, and maybe the standing ruling will cause need for inTubation in shyster lawyers?
Remember M
Re: (Score:2)
Disbar Frivolous Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
Then lawyers will be a lot more careful about flooding the courts with these worthless cases just because they have nothing better to do (and the client pays). That's their sworn job anyway, as "officers of the court", but they don't honor that oath without teeth when they break it - they're lawyers. And for those who see good cases get rejected just because they're not open/shut for lazy lawyers, that kind of refusal is also grounds for suing lawyers; suits in which the judges typically look very critically on the lawyers who should be staying out of trouble. Maybe that counterbalance needs stronger teeth, too, but there's certainly plenty of ways to get these lawyers to respect the merits of a case, whether trying or refusing it.
He did it because the lawyers suckered the jury (Score:5, Informative)
Now, where's my violin?
Re: (Score:2)
From GREAT Alibaba...
KALAMAZOO!
Here is a VIOlin...
MADE just for YOU!
(6,4,6,4... now where is my reward?)
comment on a comment in the story.. (Score:2)
The comment had to do with some other case, over the law of adverse possession (which I believe is just another way saying squating). He said in that case the just was just doing his job, and judging based on the law.
Well that's not entirely correct. Yes, a judges job is to know the law and try to decide if one has been broken or not. And the judge can overide the jury if he choo
Confusion over Judge's conduct in the trial (Score:3, Insightful)
Did They Hear It In Marshal? (Score:2)
Only if they heard it loud and clear in Marshal, Texas.
Re:And now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jack Thompson Your days are numbered (Score:2, Interesting)
(just kidding)
Still there is proof he is useless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney) [wikipedia.org]
Re:And now... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's part of the problem. With the way things are now people are getting patents to last for nearly a hundred years. Until people like this judge and others start fighting back it's only gonna get worse. I'm not saying all patents are bad but I am personally afraid that if I started to generate my own content that my little start up would be patent trolled out of existence. There needs to be a balance to prevent both patent trolls and pirates. C
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the problem is your ears, or eyes, or possibly what's between them. You are confusing copyrights and patents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they aren't confusing copyrights and patents. Read what they said, read what they're replying to, then engage your brain.
> > we can outwait patents, which only last 20 years...
> That's part of the problem. With the way things are now people are getting patents to last for nearly a hundred years.
They were pointing out that the patent system is being gamed so that patents last as long as copyrights. How this works is a new patent is submitted, adding very little to the previous patent but cl
Re:And now... (Score:5, Interesting)
However this guy has done some cool things, like halting clean dvd edits [findlaw.com], he was involved in the McViegh trail [cnn.com] and even the Kobe Bryant trial among other things [nytimes.com] .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals saw it differently and affirmed Matsch's decision to overturn the verdict."
This has already gone through the appeals court. While they could go to the supreme court, I suspect it's done and over.
out is i? (Score:2)
Re:out is i? (Score:4, Interesting)
With over 200 years of laws stacking on top of each other, stacked upon a constitution which was written vaguely in places and ammended nearly 30 times, which borrows some concepts from completely outside of those sources, it is definitely possible to justify most positions with enough technicalities.
The 2nd ammendment is a good example.
In this case, it sounds to me like the judge got tired of the plaintiff's attorneys disregarding courtroom procedure and tainting the results. I've often felt that judges weren't going anywhere near far enough to enforce profesional conduct in the courtroom. I'm a little bit surprised that he didn't bother to reference rule 13, IIRC.
&Standard IANAL clause;
Re:And now... (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, I like the Matrix trilogy, but there is a completely unnecessary sex scene in the second movie. Is it your intent to force all who would wish to watch the movie to view that scene? Even "fast forwarding" still gives you glimpses, interrupts the flow of the movie, and requires either good timing or a quick backtrack-rewind to resume the movie after the scene.
Many movies are like this. If I want to see a movie without what many consider objectionable material, why are movie studios fighting this? Wouldn't they be better off releasing a clean version of the movie themselves, and keep the profit? But since they refuse to do this, then I do not think that there is anything wrong with editing a movie to clean it up.
More to the point, networks and cable stations do this regularly to air movies on TV. Rather than prohibit *other* people from editing movies, movie studios should do what they do for networks - provide a license to edit the movie.
Prohibiting things like this does nothing but reduce movie studios' monetary gains. I, for one, won't see movies that have objectionable material unless I can either buy an edited version or see it on TV (where it is edited anyway).
I'm not saying that someone should be able to buy one copy of a DVD, edit it, and sell dozens or hundreds of burned copies. I propose that every edited copy be sold attached to an original - that way the studios get their sales money. The price could be somewhat higher than the price of the original alone, to compensate the editors for their work. Additionally, whoever does the editing should need a license (or some other form of permission) from the movie studio for each movie they edit.
Prohibiting the editing of movies altogether is not the answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's so cool about halting clean dvd edits? Do you find it morally objectionable to remove morally objectionable content from movies?
Yes I do find that objectionable. I find intolerance of natural human functions in the media objectionable. If you can't handle it, don't watch it.
Why shouldn't people be able to watch it as they want to watch it?
Prohibiting the editing of movies altogether is not the answer.
Yes it is the answer. Get over yourself.
Let me guess... you're also against fast-forward, rewind, ad-skip in TiVo, and anything and everything else that allows consumers to watch content as they wish to do so?
Re:And now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lastly perhaps the issue at hand is why anyone would find human sexuality so offensive they need to engage in censorship? Is it a religious thing? Ashamed of your own body/sexuality thing? I have trouble understanding it. Perhaps that's why it seems so outrageous to me.
I realize my personal stance is a bit on the other extreme end, what consenting people decide to do is fine by me. Wanna hunt humans and make it a televised sport? Fine by me. Want graphic all male orgies to go with that 6 o'clock news cast? Fine by me. The day people understand that violence and sex are part of the human condition and nature as whole will be the day we can really start moving forward as society.
Re:And now... (Score:4, Informative)
B.) The issue at hand was editing in regards to 'moral' objections. Which was nothing more than pandering to religious types that attempt to engage in a war mainstream culture.
You're attempting to argue that is someones right to watch this edited, family friendly media. And sure, I suppose they do have that right. But the sooner we ditch these archaic concepts ingrained in the major monotheistic religions the better off we will be.
Re:And now... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is wrong with you? Do you hate to be distracted by love while watching violence? To me you appear like a very, very sick person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And now... (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, I like the Matrix trilogy, but there is a completely unnecessary sex scene in the second movie. Is it your intent to force all who would wish to watch the movie to view that scene? Even "fast forwarding" still gives you glimpses, interrupts the flow of the movie, and requires either good timing or a quick backtrack-rewind to resume the movie after the scene.
It really does seem like a fair compromise, people that don't want to view the material would have an easy way of avoiding it, and the people that do could do so. It would also make it quite a bit easier to separate out the "please, won't somebody, think of the children" crowd from the people that just don't want their own kids watching it.
If they really wanted to buff up the bottom line, they could probably make a feature which would do the opposite, skip all the wholesome stuff and get straight to the T&A and B&G.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This sort of things is one of the things that I wanted the Blu-ray and HD-DVDs to provide. Basically the content would still be there, but people that didn't want to view it could change a setting and those things would be skipped
This feature is already there with DVDs. You can define multiple paths through the same video files. The idea was that you could put the cinema and director's cuts on the same disk and have a menu option to select the one to watch. Then the studios realised that they could make more money selling them on separate disks.
Re:And now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Returning to the Matrix: did you see how the original Matrix was edited for TV? Instead of "give you the finger" it was "Why don't I give you the flipper." WTF does that even mean? If I were the W bros. I'd have been a bit ticked. Also the sex scene in th sequel was tastefully done, and I thought it added a bit of gravity and beauty to what would have otherwise been a ridiculous rave scene.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm sorry but there are no financial justifications for this - allowing a third party to release censored versions increases total sales and total profits, period. The only legitimate objection is to preserve the integrity of ones artistic vision.
Re:And now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... the fact that Clean/Family flix - who held no rights in the movies they were redistributing - was redistributing copyrighted material for money in direct violation of the copyright holders' rights?
If you find the content morally objectionable, how is it more moral to buy an edited version from someone who has no right to sell it? It seems to me that the best thing you can do is vote with your wallet and not buy it.
And if that is too extreme for your tests, I respectfully suggest that you don't see that content as nearly so "objectionable" as you make it out to be.
The courts prohibited only using copyrighted material without permissions, which is after all what copyright is for. Whether the owner of the copyright wishes to allow a company to PAY for the rights to do what Clean Flix wanted to do is entirely up to the owner(s). The court is quite correct in stating that it has no say in it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those clean-edits people were doing the effective equivalent of buying a book, blacking out certain sentences and pulling out specific pages and then reselling the book.
Just because a new storage medium inherently prevents direct alteration should not be an excuse to prevent a legitimate buyer from doing something that produces the same end result.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not correct. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And now... (Score:5, Interesting)
This kind of thing is most common when the lawyers get out of control...If the judge decides that the lawyers are running amok, they can throw the whole thing out and charge them with contempt or whatever. There is some precedent in also tossing cases where the juries decision contravenes the material facts of the case, but that's a much greyer area, though it has been upheld more often than not.
Re: (Score:2)
Stuck the -*-plaintiff's lawyers-*- with the litigation costs. Big difference. The only downside for the plaintiff is they lost the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And now... (Score:4, Informative)
Funnily enough, you don't hear about this happening very often in the UK, which has a loser-normally-pays system (rather than loser occasionally pays, as in the US). Now this could be because UK law has a substantially different culture to the US (although I'm far from convinced that this is true) or it could be because the threat is blown up out of all proportion by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Here's a suggestion: google tort reform astroturf [google.co.uk]. I highly recommend the first link that comes up, and some of the others are good too.
Re:And now... (Score:4, Informative)
The plaintiff's lawyers are being ordered to pay, not the plaintiff.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a case where a company hired lawyers to file a frivolous lawsuit, lost, and the judge penalized the plaintiff's law firm for it's conduct.
What you describe is a small company suing a large company and being "out-spent" and being forced to concede the lawsuit or going bankrupt. It would be pretty hard for Sony
Re: (Score:2)
This is definitely for the better - losing parties should generally pay for legal fees, especially if they are the instigator of the lawsuit. It makes it more fair, and prevents large companies from suing smaller companies just to get them out of business. Court costs are expensive and a small company shouldn't be expected just to eat those cost by a bunch or predatory lawyer companies.
Incidentally this is not new. In Canada it is standard practice in corporate cases to allow businesses to recoup their la
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Translation: once you step foot on federal ground (courthouse,military base,atomic test sites,U.S.highways,etc.) your constitutional rights are more like constitutional favors you are granted if they feel like it. Other ways you are wangled out of your rights are by having a Federal address on your house(for reasons of recieving mail from Federal Post Office, signi