According to Law360 (truncated teaser)
A California federal judge has ruled that Apple Inc. may not refer to GPNE Corp. as a "patent troll", "pirate" or "bounty hunter" when it heads to an infringement trial in October against the patent-assertion entity over three GPNE patents covering data transmission.
In a Tuesday pretrial order addressing the parties' motions in limine, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh also blocked Apple Inc. from calling GPNE a "bounty hunter", "bandit", "paper patent", "stick up", "shakedown", "playing the lawsuit lottery", "corporate shell game" or "a corporate shell".
Hat tip to El Reg for the expanded version.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Judge Koh Bars Apple From Calling Rival 'Patent Troll' At Trial
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 10 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday July 06 2014, @04:32AM
How about hyper-flatulent pruno-soaked butt monkeys?
The unclean ones?
We need a seance with George Carlin.
If it pleases the court, we have completed our motion with due consideration of Carlin's list of things we cannot call the hyper-flatulent pruno-soaked butt monkeys who file a patent every time they sit on the toilet, now to be read in full into the record for the sake of clarity...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Subsentient on Sunday July 06 2014, @05:52AM
I can completely understand not wanting an unofficial label such as patent troll thrown around in court to sway the Jury, because regardless of whether they are patent trolls or deserve to win, the Judge is concerned with whether or not any patent was violated, and that's it.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Lagg on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:00AM
Would be acceptable if they similarly barred people from calling defendants "pirates" which is a much less apt name. I hold no love for Apple but this is pretty much nonsense. If they're patent trolls they're patent trolls. The criteria for being one is pretty obvious and is a rather widely accepted term at this point.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Clev on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:31PM
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:56PM
I personally like the term in TFA, Privateer.
I'm going to start using that term at work when I'm trying to rally support for strong action.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06 2014, @09:50AM
In all fairness, extortion ought to be illegal in all cases, and any law saying otherwise stricken.
Patents are nothing less than a law-granted license to extort. They don't "protect" anything any more than an ICBM does.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:13AM
i understand the judge wanting to keep civility in his courtroom, but if a word accurately describes something, arent you obligated to use it when discussing said thing?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by umafuckitt on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:35AM
Possibly not if it's a loaded term that biases a jury or judge. Decisions should be based on evidence not name calling. e.g. It would be accurate to call Rolf Harris a filthy kiddie fiddler, but it wouldn't do for the prosecution to label him as such in court, when the purpose of the trial is decide whether he is, indeed, a filthy kiddie fiddler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday July 06 2014, @08:40AM
Lucy H. Koh wants to maintain civility in HER courtroom.
There are common terms for participants in a trial, plaintiff and defendant, and she is right to keep it at that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by iwoloschin on Sunday July 06 2014, @12:35PM
Are they officially a patent troll yet? If Apple wins this case, would they then be able to refer to this company forever more as a patent troll?