<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Patent Trolls and the &#8220;Lawsuit Capital&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ipinthedigitalage.com/patent-trolls-and-the-lawsuit-capital/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ipinthedigitalage.com/patent-trolls-and-the-lawsuit-capital/</link>
	<description>CPSC 182 at Yale College</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 01:26:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Spector</title>
		<link>http://ipinthedigitalage.com/patent-trolls-and-the-lawsuit-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-1130</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Spector</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=437#comment-1130</guid>
		<description>A poll of Wired readers had the same reasoning with regard to solving &quot;forum-shopping&quot;: they voted 139–10 in favor of restricting patent cases to the district where at least one party resides. There are a few other interesting grievances listed there, too.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/05/patent_reform</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A poll of Wired readers had the same reasoning with regard to solving &#8220;forum-shopping&#8221;: they voted 139–10 in favor of restricting patent cases to the district where at least one party resides. There are a few other interesting grievances listed there, too.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/05/patent_reform" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/05/patent_reform</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Silverman</title>
		<link>http://ipinthedigitalage.com/patent-trolls-and-the-lawsuit-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-1094</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Silverman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=437#comment-1094</guid>
		<description>I had the same reaction as Tyce--limiting patent litigation to the district of the patent holder seems like it would solve this problem of district courts favoring one side or the other in order to attract more business.

Also, kudos to Judge Ward for holding the attorneys to strict time limits.  I spent a summer interning in a DA&#039;s office, and it was so bothersome to see how much time gets wasted, both by the prosecuting and defense teams.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had the same reaction as Tyce&#8211;limiting patent litigation to the district of the patent holder seems like it would solve this problem of district courts favoring one side or the other in order to attract more business.</p>
<p>Also, kudos to Judge Ward for holding the attorneys to strict time limits.  I spent a summer interning in a DA&#8217;s office, and it was so bothersome to see how much time gets wasted, both by the prosecuting and defense teams.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyce W</title>
		<link>http://ipinthedigitalage.com/patent-trolls-and-the-lawsuit-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-1004</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyce W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:16:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=437#comment-1004</guid>
		<description>This whole situation has interesting parallels with the recent Supreme Court case Caperton v. A.T. Massey.  Like that case, which asked whether an elected judge who had received campaign contributions from the owner of a coal company could sit in impartial judgment of that company, the situation in Marshall forces us to examine the intersection of justice and economics.  Can someone with significant economic incentives really render justice, either as a juror or a judge?  And even if they can, is the appearance of bias almost as damaging to the legal system as any actual bias would be?  

In both cases, I&#039;m inclined to be overcautious - although I have no idea how to actually alleviate the tricky situation in Marshall.  After all, one can&#039;t very well refuse to allow an entire town to act as jurors.  Perhaps the law should be changed so that patent litigation must be brought in the district of the person or business holding the patent?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This whole situation has interesting parallels with the recent Supreme Court case Caperton v. A.T. Massey.  Like that case, which asked whether an elected judge who had received campaign contributions from the owner of a coal company could sit in impartial judgment of that company, the situation in Marshall forces us to examine the intersection of justice and economics.  Can someone with significant economic incentives really render justice, either as a juror or a judge?  And even if they can, is the appearance of bias almost as damaging to the legal system as any actual bias would be?  </p>
<p>In both cases, I&#8217;m inclined to be overcautious &#8211; although I have no idea how to actually alleviate the tricky situation in Marshall.  After all, one can&#8217;t very well refuse to allow an entire town to act as jurors.  Perhaps the law should be changed so that patent litigation must be brought in the district of the person or business holding the patent?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evin M</title>
		<link>http://ipinthedigitalage.com/patent-trolls-and-the-lawsuit-capital/comment-page-1/#comment-999</link>
		<dc:creator>Evin M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=437#comment-999</guid>
		<description>The currently circulated solution to this situation seems to be more people, more money, and new leadership in the patent office.  On the legislative end, Leahy and Hatch are backing The Patent Reform Act of 2009, which is receiving some backlash from people who think that the new administration should settle in a bit more before patent reform occurs.  Judging from Sen. Brownback&#039;s question session with Gary Locke (new commerce secretary), our new leadership isn&#039;t headed in any particular direction regarding patents.  Locke didn&#039;t seem to provide much in the way of opinions, citing a support for &quot;innovation&quot; about a zillion times.  Maybe that&#039;s just the nature of the senate hearings...we&#039;ll see.  Here&#039;s the q&amp;a if you&#039;re interested: http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/04/01/former-gov-gary-locke-confirmed-as-commerce-secretary-who-will-be-pto-director/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The currently circulated solution to this situation seems to be more people, more money, and new leadership in the patent office.  On the legislative end, Leahy and Hatch are backing The Patent Reform Act of 2009, which is receiving some backlash from people who think that the new administration should settle in a bit more before patent reform occurs.  Judging from Sen. Brownback&#8217;s question session with Gary Locke (new commerce secretary), our new leadership isn&#8217;t headed in any particular direction regarding patents.  Locke didn&#8217;t seem to provide much in the way of opinions, citing a support for &#8220;innovation&#8221; about a zillion times.  Maybe that&#8217;s just the nature of the senate hearings&#8230;we&#8217;ll see.  Here&#8217;s the q&#038;a if you&#8217;re interested: <a href="http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/04/01/former-gov-gary-locke-confirmed-as-commerce-secretary-who-will-be-pto-director/" rel="nofollow">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/04/01/former-gov-gary-locke-confirmed-as-commerce-secretary-who-will-be-pto-director/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
