Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: loop

By: magillagorilla in IDCC | Recommend this post (0)
Thu, 31 Oct 13 9:55 AM | 336 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications 		Msg. 46984 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 46983 by zzfan)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Loop, I share your concerns about the “patent owner needing to post a bond”, but could this not also be a way to awaken the actual trolls, (those who only buy and litigate) into reconsidering frivolous litigations?

I can only wonder what "provide for circumtances" might mean.

Second, the legistlation would provide for circumstances in which a court may require a patent owner to “post a bond sufficient to ensure payment of the accused infringer’s reasonable fees and other expenses, including attorney fees.”

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=93545709


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: loop
By: zzfan in IDCC
Thu, 31 Oct 13 7:56 AM 		Msg. 46983 of 48237

He is disgusted. The idea of forcing a patent holder to post a bond to enforce rights is simply wrong. They are effectively blocking the little man from asserting rights under a presumed valid instrument issued by the USPO. He believes IDCC should prevail in the Nok 337 investigation under the law, but he is concerned that lobbyists may be the fact finders and decision makers in DC.

MO
loop

« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next