Troll Tracker Defamation Lawsuit: Trial Underway

Eric Albritton’s defamation lawsuit against Rick Frenkel and his former employer Cisco Systems is underway in the Eastern District of Texas. In my opinion, the case is ridiculous. However, it should serve as a reminder that those vehemently against certain types of speech can often shut-down that speech. Frenkel has indicated that he will not revive his troll tracker blog.

The whole controversy began when Albritton’s litigation team (on behalf of ESN) filed a patent infringement action against Cisco in the Eastern District of Texas. The electronic timestamp of the filing was October 15, 2007 even though the patent did not issue until October 16. Of course, a patentee has no standing to file a lawsuit until the patent issues. I reported on that discrepancy in an October 16 Patently-O post. [Link].

A few days later, Frenkel reported that the filing date had been changed by the clerk without notice or motion. In his report, Frenkel suggested that

“ESN’s local counsel called the EDTX court clerk and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date, rather than the October 15 filing date. I checked, and sure enough, that’s exactly what happened – the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. . . . This is yet another example of the abusive nature of litigating patent cases in the Banana Republic of East Texas.”

In a later posting, Frenkel identified Albritton as ESN’s local counsel.

Albritton apparently does not dispute the fact that the original docket sheet indicated October 15 or that his office convinced the clerk to change the date stamp. However, he explains that the change was proper because the electronic filing had been started prior to midnight, but was not finally submitted until after midnight.

Albritton subsequently filed a defamation suit against Frenkel, several of his colleagues at Cisco, and against Cisco itself. The basis of the defamation suit is the underlying implication that Albritton acted illegally in getting the docket sheet changed.

Complicating the case are the issues that: (1) Frenkel was at the time posting anonymously as the “Patent Troll Tracker;” (2) the docket sheet change involved a case against Frenkel’s employer Cisco; (3) Frenkel also mentioned another attorney, Johnny Ward, son of E.D.Tex. Judge Ward; and (4) The lack of respect for the E.D.Tex. apparent in the Troll Tracker posts.

Joe Mullin has been reporting on the details of the trial. [Link]

146 thoughts on “Troll Tracker Defamation Lawsuit: Trial Underway

  1. Dear Lionel,

    I posted the following response to your question on another thread – perhaps you missed it. It leads up to this question I posed to you (et al.).

    Lionel, would you agree that attorneys, as Officers of the Court, should be held to a higher standard than the average (ordinary) bear blogger?

    —————————————————
    Thank you for your comment. You ask me:

    “What factual, supportable statement did RJR make in that rant you cited? It seems like a stream of opinion.”

    Mr. Riley wrote these facts, facts which no professional IP person could deny – even Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler would be constrained to admit such:

    “As far as I can tell … Frankel … displayed a profound disrespect for the court and the practice of law.
    … This is … an issue of misconduct unbecoming an attorney.”

    Also, perhaps you missed these excerpts from Business Week posted on the Troll Tracker Defamation … thread:
    link to patentlyo.com

    link to businessweek.com
    “… subject … “patent trolls,” a derogatory term … The “about me” section of the blog noted that the writer [Rick Frenkel] was simply “a patent lawyer trying to gather and organize information about patent litigation.”
    —————————————————
    … in its pointed commentary, Troll Tracker advanced views squarely in line with the company’s own agenda. Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler even cited the blog as a good independent source of information while in Washington lobbying for changes to patent law that would rein in trolls, unaware he was plugging the work of a Cisco employee.

    Troll Tracker gained repute as a forum for information, not invective. But its more volatile content would eventually combine to blow up the blog and land its creator and Cisco in legal hot water.

    … Frenkel and Cisco are now defendants in a pair of defamation lawsuits, and they may be dragged into other litigation.

    … But when an employee blogs about company business, anonymity can spell trouble. “I think there’s very much a tendency to be reckless when you’re posting anonymously—and to be more biased than you normally would be,” says Dennis D. Crouch, a law professor at the University of Missouri, who runs Patently-O, the most widely read patent blog.

    …After his identity was revealed, Cisco took a path of contrition. In a Mar. 24 post to its corporate blog, Cisco said that even though Frenkel intended his blog to reflect solely his opinion, “Cisco takes responsibility for the content.” The statement concluded: “Blogging and blog policy are evolving areas for many companies. We believe we have learned a valuable lesson from this regrettable situation.”

    … the Eastern District of Texas, … Frenkel referred to it in an October item as “the Banana Republic of East Texas,” even as Cisco was defending litigation there.

    …”He did a very good job of cloaking himself,” the lawyer says. The search found that the blog was hosted on a Google server in Korea, and that the blogger filled out a profile in which he claimed to be from Afghanistan.

    … Cisco in a Mar. 24 blog post chastised some of its employees for “poor judgment,” and outlined a new policy.”
    —————————————————

    * * * * *

    Lionel, my friend, you wrote:
    “For the record, you post anonymously. How do I know you are not some shill for the Niro firm or some other disreputable, opportunist dirtbags?”

    Firstly: I would be careful if I were you of who you libelously defame!
    I suggest an immediate apology – you’ll thank me in the morning.

    Secondly: In the interest of Full Disclosure, please be advised that I am exactly who I say I am – no more, no less – patriotic and opinionated, proud and accomplished, yet still a humble “ordinary” inventor.
    You only need to read my numerous diatribes to know that to be true. Moreover, I’ve revealed much of my background and experiences, philosophy and principles by which I live, and even some of my habits, many times on Patently-O.
    Other than my litigations and bloggings, I prefer a quite, private life.

    I post anonymously because I do not want to tie my comments to past, present or possible future litigations, Just as other professionals who post here do not want to tie their comments to past, present or possible future litigations.
    After all, the practice of IP is fraught with litigation.

    Below is a link to an article you may find of interest,
    an article I think we should all heed – which is not to suggest there is anything wrong with anonymous blogging, as long as one doesn’t set out to materially defraud, but, rather, exercises “good Behaviour.”

    * * * * *

    Lionel, would you agree that attorneys, as Officers of the Court, should be held to a higher standard than the average (ordinary) bear blogger?

    link to nytimes.com

    Excerpts from this New York Times article:

    SOON, BLOGGERS MUST GIVE FULL DISCLOSURE
    By TIM ARANGO — Published October 6, 2009

    “For nearly three decades, the Federal Trade Commission’s rules regarding the relationships between advertisers and product reviewers and endorsers were deemed adequate. Then came the age of blogging and social media.

    On Monday, the F.T.C. said it would revise rules about endorsements and testimonials in advertising that had been in place since 1980. The new regulations are aimed at the rapidly shifting new-media world and how advertisers are using bloggers and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to pitch their wares.

    The F.T.C. said that beginning on Dec. 1, bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently. …

    For bloggers who review products, this means that the days of an unimpeded flow of giveaways may be over. More broadly, the move suggests that the government is intent on bringing to bear on the Internet the same sorts of regulations that have governed other forms of media, like television or print.

    “It crushes the idea that the Internet is separate from the kinds of concerns that have been attached to previous media,” said Clay Shirky, a professor at New York University.

    Richard Cleland, assistant director of the division of advertising practices at the F.T.C., said: “We were looking and seeing the significance of social media marketing in the 21st century and we thought it was time to explain the principles of transparency and truth in advertising and apply them to social media marketing.”

  2. I find the assertion that Joe Mullin has picked up where Rick Frankel left off, perhaps with some anonymous help very interesting and I am looking forward to learning much more about this.
    Who believes that Cisco had nothing to do with this?

    Was Rick Frankel commenting on behalf of Cisco and they both were irresponsible or were his actions on his own and just simply incredibly stupid? Either way it is not a pretty picture.
    In light of this Frankel is not a poster child for First Amendment rights and if he was I would be defending his rights. As far as I can tell Cisco and Frankel perpetuated a huge fraud on the public and displayed a profound disrespect for the court and the practice of law.

    It is a fact that attorneys must give up some of their First Amendment rights when representing a client. This is not a First Amendment issue. It is an issue of misconduct unbecoming an attorney.
    The only thing amazing about Joe Mullin is how biased his coverage is. He either knows or should know that that patent enforcement entities only exist because large corporations are stealing untold billions of dollars worth of others patented inventions. They have been doing this for a very long time and it has only been in recent times that they are being held accountable.

    One last point, the Obama administration is systematically alienating commercially successful inventors by backing the agenda of patent thieves. Inventors who survive big corporations trial by fire have become much more active politically. Most of this is behind the scenes. They are incredibly tenacious and have memories like an elephant.

    There is no way that the Coalition for Patent Fairness (aka. Piracy Coalition) can give their political allies enough cover to avoid the consequences of their actions.

    Ronald J. Riley,

    President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR act PIAUSA.org
    Washington, DC
    Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.

  3. From the Internet:

    We rarely get a chance to see another country’s editorial about the USA

    Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title ‘C’ntarea Americii, meaning ‘Ode To America ‘) in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei ‘The Daily Event’ or ‘News of the Day’.

    ~An Ode to America ~

    Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs.

    On 9/ll, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the Army, or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about.

    Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand.

    After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing. On every occasion, they started singing: ‘God Bless America !’

    I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people.

    How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being? Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put into collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy. What on earth unites the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I reached but only one conclusion… Only freedom can work such miracles.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

    Cornel Nistorescu

    Thank you Cornel

  4. Dear Mr. Rat,

    Boy, You got that right! You betcha!

    Just loudly call me, Mr. ORDINARY PIG.

    Imagine the thrill for an ordinary pig like me to take down the likes of Cisco Systems!
    It wouldn’t be the first time I beat a Fat Cat, but I don’t mean to brag.

    * * * * *

    Dear broje,

    Please let me again thank you for your comment and concern — truly, much appreciated. As you may guess, I need all the sympathy I can get, and that may not be enough.

    PS:
    Please explain (I’m not so good at acronym s and I often forget what they mean even after I’ve been told):

    “If we had signatures here, mine would include those Internet MEMEs.”

    TGIF, TGFAW, OAU, & TGFCT,EOF.

    * * * * *

    At this point I will raise my cup again to salute Lionel and all my good friends and Lionel.
    (o¿õ)
    (õ¿0)
    (©¿õ)
    (õ¿)
    (©¿®)
    (©¿Õ)
    (C¿D)
    (õ¿Q)
    (¢¿©)
    (¢¿$)
    (Š¿Õ)
    (©¿Õ)
    (¢¿Õ)
    (‰¿Õ)
    (©¿ç)
    (©çÕ)
    (%¿Õ)
    (©¿ç)
    (©çÕ)

  5. JAOI,

    You know my sympathies lie with you, the small inventor. However, I Am Not Your Lawyer (IANYL), and This Is Not Legal Advice (TINLA).

    If we had signatures here, mine would include those Internet MEMEs.

  6. “if litigation erupted between Jaoi & Cisco.”

    Doubtful that Cisco would sue except under really extreme circumstances. No doubt they have heard the adage:

    “Never wrestle with a pig: you both get dirty – and the pig likes it”

  7. Here are a few more excerpts from this Business Week article:
    link to businessweek.com

    … subject … “patent trolls,” a derogatory term … The “about me” section of the blog noted that the writer [Rick Frenkel] was simply “a patent lawyer trying to gather and organize information about patent litigation.”

    … in its pointed commentary, Troll Tracker advanced views squarely in line with the company’s own agenda. Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler even cited the blog as a good independent source of information while in Washington lobbying for changes to patent law that would rein in trolls, unaware he was plugging the work of a Cisco employee.

    Troll Tracker gained repute as a forum for information, not invective. But its more volatile content would eventually combine to blow up the blog and land its creator and Cisco in legal hot water.

    … Frenkel and Cisco are now defendants in a pair of defamation lawsuits, and they may be dragged into other litigation.

    … But when an employee blogs about company business, anonymity can spell trouble. “I think there’s very much a tendency to be reckless when you’re posting anonymously—and to be more biased than you normally would be,” says Dennis D. Crouch, a law professor at the University of Missouri, who runs Patently-O, the most widely read patent blog.

    …After his identity was revealed, Cisco took a path of contrition. In a Mar. 24 post to its corporate blog, Cisco said that even though Frenkel intended his blog to reflect solely his opinion, “Cisco takes responsibility for the content.” The statement concluded: “Blogging and blog policy are evolving areas for many companies. We believe we have learned a valuable lesson from this regrettable situation.”

    … the Eastern District of Texas, … Frenkel referred to it in an October item as “the Banana Republic of East Texas,” even as Cisco was defending litigation there.

    …”He did a very good job of cloaking himself,” the lawyer says. The search found that the blog was hosted on a Google server in Korea, and that the blogger filled out a profile in which he claimed to be from Afghanistan.

    … Cisco in a Mar. 24 blog post chastised some of its employees for “poor judgment,” and outlined a new policy.

  8. By the way, I think Professor Crouch would feel obligated to run the report if litigation erupted between Jaoi & Cisco. Wouldn’t that be a lively thread?

  9. Dear Lionel,

    If Cisco had the urge to sue me, they’d have done so a long time ago.
    I doubt Cisco’s attorneys are that dumb.

    Given my particular circumstances, and potential counterclaim, I bet I’d walk away with a generous settlement.

    Moreover, I still believe Cisco has serious exposure under the Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601), moreso under the Obama administration.

    This whole affair is a huge embarrassment to Cisco.
    I’d bet they like to see it just go away. How would you feel if you were Mr. Chandler?

    link to businessweek.com
    Excerpt:
    “Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler even cited the blog as a good independent source of information while in Washington lobbying for changes to patent law that would rein in trolls, unaware he was plugging the work of a Cisco employee.”

    As you say my friend, “Truth is always a valid defense.”

    PS: Lest anyone mistake my comments,
    with all due respect, I disagree with your thoughts about what is actionable.
    I strongly believe I have not written anything actionable.
    But I can understand why some would disagree with me – its human nature.

  10. Also, I haven’t seen or used those particular acronyms, but I assume broje meant I Am Not Your Lawyer and This Is Not Legal Advice.

  11. JAOI,

    You have made a number of actionable claims about Mr. Frankel. Just like the attorney here had an actionable case against Frankel. Truth is always a valid defense.

    “The Cisco Kid’s personal views are irrelevant! He was paid by Cisco, and he carried out Cisco’s agenda — what more need be said be said?

    And when Cisco officials went to Washington saying PTT was an independent opinion, that was bs, fraud, with a capital “F”. Again, the Cisco kid’s personal views are/were irrelevant.”

    Actionable.

  12. Dear broje,

    Thank you for your advice and concern — much appreciated.
    However, I believe I am sufficiently aware of my possible exposure and have been sufficiently cautious (I could be wrong now.*)

    For example, I did not accuse a specific individual of treason. I wrote this:
    “Because of international entities’ greedy for globalization, I believe those responsible for lying and deliberate misrepresentations to dismantle our patent system are traitors for unscrupulously destroying a key factor in our nation’s prestigious position as the world’s leading innovator, our historically strong patent system, which used to be the envy of the world.”

    But for my edification I’d like to ask you a question:
    If I were to write,

    1) “In my opinion, entities that use fraud to dismantle our nation’s patent system are guilty of treason.”

    Or,

    2) “I believe Joe Smith, President of Big Inc. Co., is guilty of fraud in his attempts to dismantle our nation’s patent system; in my mind he is guilty of treason.”

    Do you believe these statements would be actionable?

    * If I’m wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been sued, although in most of my litigations I’ve been the Plaintiff. I’ll admit I do enjoy the thrill of a good row. Next to inventing, win lose or draw, I enjoy a good court battle. Perhaps I was Don Quixote in a prior life.

    PS: What does IANYL and TINLA mean?.

  13. JAOI,

    As a lawyer, I find it ironic that you talk about actionable torts when you are the one allegedly accusing specific individuals of things like “fraud” and “treason.” You might want to look up the actionable tort known as “libel.”

    As always, IANYL and TINLA.

  14. Dear Lionel,

    As I wrote above,
    I staunchly believe in First Amendment rights. However, I believe lying and deliberate misrepresentation in order to effect patent reform that is destroying my beloved profession one case at a time, one rule at a time, one decision at a time, should not be tolerated or protected under the First Amendment and should be actionable.
    Let Right be Done!
    Because of international entities’ greed for globalization, I believe those responsible for lying and deliberate misrepresentations to dismantle our patent system are traitors for unscrupulously destroying a key factor in our nation’s prestigious position as the world’s leading innovator, our historically strong patent system, which use to be the envy of the world.

    Night all…more tomorrow, God willing.

  15. ” If indeed you do know which 2800 examiner I am then perhaps you can explain to me just exactly how it is that I should know that you aren’t the one behind the most recent rash of fanboi calls I’ve been receiving? ”
    Did one email you received re JAOI not contain your first name? Anyways, as much time as I waste at work, I have yet to waste time making “fanboi” calls to you.

    “Even should I silence you I have no control over the rest.”
    Over the rest of what?

    “Even their number is unknown to me”
    No idea what this sentence means.

    “Information I want for information you want.”
    Only information I have is your likely identity. Presumably you have that too. I’m only interested in JAOI’s identity for entertainment purposes.

  16. “You owe me for keeping my silence regarding which TC2800 examiner you are.”

    Uh huh. I see. If indeed you do know which 2800 examiner I am then perhaps you can explain to me just exactly how it is that I should know that you aren’t the one behind the most recent rash of fanboi calls I’ve been receiving?

    Even should I silence you I have no control over the rest. Even their number is unknown to me. Never the less, an arrangement could perhaps be reached between the two of us. Information I want for information you want. Send me a mail with your name upon it and we will discuss it.

    I don’t think you have anything to fear from this examiner knowing JAOI.

  17. “Whether or not Mr. Frankel’s lack of judgment was or is actionable, tantamount to libel, is another question. Some, like me, believe so, …”

    JAOI – you are confusing what the law is with what you wish the law was.

    “I am the David fighting a cartel of Goliaths, a lone wolf crying in the wilderness of patent reform”

    Get over yourself.

    The opponents of patent reform have been losing because, like you, they have insisted on defending every inch of ground (Bilski, “Buy it now”, etc), allowing those who want patent reform to pick the field of battle.

  18. Dear Number Six,

    Thanks for your input. I must be doing something write.
    But why would you wanna ruin our blossoming relationship?
    What about the responsibilities of your esteemed position at the PTO?
    Stay cool my friend, and let sleeping dogs lie peacefully. Peace.

  19. JAOI,

    Maybe your problem is logic. You can take an undergraduate course at most colleges.

    >>Re:
    >>“Actually, I did not agree that Frankel lied >>about who he was. I simply said it did not >>matter.”

    >>With all due respect, this is precisely what >>you wrote earlier:

    >>“Lying about who you are online is not >>actionable. How dense are you?
    >>Posted by: Lionel Hutz | Sep 23, 2009 at 04:03 >>PM”

    Please explain how this equals “Rich Frenkel lied”

    Also, please find one case to support your position.

    The purpose or reasoning of the speaker is irrelevant. What he says is. Your identity is unimportant

    I believe in something called the Constitution. It includes the First Amendment. I know lot of right wingers like wipe their feet on it, but it still means something to me.

  20. crickets may chirp, but the two faced Malcolm will *click* on complaining about drive-by drivel on one thread and do the exact same thing on another.

    Another day at the Train Wreck

  21. “As I said earlier, I am the David fighting a cartel of Goliaths, a lone wolf crying in the wilderness of patent reform”

    Ow-ow-owoooooooooo!!!!!!

    [crickets chirping]

  22. Dear Jules,

    Thank you for your comment and compliment.

    I am a humble inventor, and I love my profession. On an intellectual level I have always been a fighter. In this battle, I am the David fighting a cartel of Goliaths, a lone wolf crying in the wilderness of patent reform and Supreme Court decisions that are destroying my beloved profession one case at a time, one rule at a time, one decision at a time.

    The authors of the Federalist Papers used the pseudonym “Publius.” Even though they wrote anonymously they did not represent themselves as “a good independent source of information”, and that’s a huge distinction. Even though I write anonymously, my bias rings loud and clear — no one who has read my comments could possibly believe that I was “a good independent source of information.” My obvious bias for strong patents and my jingoistic beliefs have been criticized numerous times.

    I draw a parallel with my heros, Mr. Albittron, Mr. Ward, Mr. Niro et al., and I staunchly believe in First Amendment rights. However, I believe lying and deliberate misrepresentation in order to effect patent reform that is destroying my beloved profession one case at a time, one rule at a time, one decision at a time, should not be tolerated or protected under the First Amendment and should be actionable.
    Let Right be Done!
    Because of international entities’ greedy for globalization, I believe those responsible for lying and deliberate misrepresentations to dismantle our patent system are traitors for unscrupulously destroying a key factor in our nation’s prestigious position as the world’s leading innovator, our historically strong patent system, which used to be the envy of the world.

    Re:
    “My opinion is that you are just taking this too personally.”

    With all due respect Jules, if you knew the particulars, your opinion would be very different and you would be sympathetic to my cause.

    Re:
    “If you are doing the right things, then you have nothing to worry about.”

    Again with all due respect, I must strongly disagree. Even in criminal capital matters, judges and juries come to the wrong decision time and time again — please consider all those innocents who have been vindicated by DNA analysis.

    Re:
    “Isn’t the jury pool supposedly affected by every source of information, even yourself?”

    I have limited resources. Compare that to Cisco, with 65,000 employees and annual revenue of $36.10 billion as of 2009, the 125 members, many with numbers similar to Cisco’s, of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, et al.

    As I said earlier, I am the David fighting a cartel of Goliaths, a lone wolf crying in the wilderness of patent reform and Supreme Court decisions that are destroying my beloved profession one patent case at a time, one rule at a time, one decision at a time.

    Again, thank you for your comment and compliment — I appreciated the opportunity to respond.

  23. I should tell you JAOI that your last post almost resembles what you might write if you were 1. not drunk and 2. were posting under your real name.

    I should also tell you that this article has attracted significant interest in who your clark kent really is. More than I expected actually.

    Those of you who have mailed me seem to have indicated interest in his ID, however, none of you have provided me with any interest in disclosing his ID. Do you want to file suit? I figure a few G shouldn’t hurt you. If your interest is other than that, then go ahead and tell me about it.

    Consider this a reply to everyone who mailed me. I don’t really want to take the time to respond to everyone right this minute.

    I note also that it doesn’t seem that Frankel was very interested in you though JAOI. So for that, at least, you should be thankful.

  24. What do you say JAOI to this question: if Rick Frenkel didn’t report in this manner, who would have? Have you not heard of the Federalist Papers? Do they not draw a parallel? Do you really believe the First Amendment should be weakened by crybabies like Albittron et al? Anonymity is a shield where people can present controversial opinions, that otherwise might never be heard. My opinion is that you are just taking this too personally. If you are doing the right things, then you have nothing to worry about.

    Good post though, at 10:46 AM. Finally got around to clarifying the area of my lack of understanding, i.e. how would this affect a jury pool or judge? At any rate I somewhat disagree with the impact on jury pools. If by “jury pool” you mean the general public, then what is the big impact? Isn’t the jury pool supposedly affected by every source of information, even yourself?

  25. HiHo Lionel,

    Regrading your comment:
    “JAOI, you really should not opine on the law when you have demonstrated time and again on this blog that you do not understand it.”

    I thought my boss was doing a fair job at holding his own in this lively debate.

  26. Dear Lionel,

    Re:
    “Actually, I did not agree that Frankel lied about who he was. I simply said it did not matter.”

    With all due respect, this is precisely what you wrote earlier:

    “Lying about who you are online is not actionable. How dense are you?
    Posted by: Lionel Hutz | Sep 23, 2009 at 04:03 PM”

    Re:
    “I reiterate – the identity and purpose of the speaker is irrelevant.”

    You can repeat that canard as often as you want but that does not make it so.
    Please see my response to Mr. Fixed Your Claim.

  27. Dear Fixed Your Claim,

    Thank you for your comment — I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

    Here is a link explaining what Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler thought about PTT:
    link to businessweek.com
    Excerpt:
    “Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler even cited the blog as a good independent source of information while in Washington lobbying for changes to patent law that would rein in trolls, unaware he was plugging the work of a Cisco employee.”

    Re:
    “ordinary IP attorney” != “neutral IP attorney with no ulterior motive, no particular agenda … I propose that no ordinary IP attorneys exist anywhere.”

    If my use of the word “ordinary” was confusing, I apologize. Mr. Frankel’s lying misrepresentation I complain about is better described in Mr. Chandler’s words, i.e., the PTT blog was “… a good independent source of information…”.

    Thus, can we agree that, non-patent practitioners, such as those in Washington to whom Mr. Chandler was lobbying, would have had their judgments of the American patent system influenced by reading Mr. Frankel’s PTT? Mr. Chandler thought so; obviously, that’s why he said what he did.

    If you subscribe to Tom Friedman’s “Tilt Theory of History ” theory, as I do, you will agree we have a cause for serious concern.
    Excerpt:
    “The Tilt Theory states that countries and cultures do not change by sudden transformations.”
    Quote from the NYT article, “TILTING THE PLAYING FIELD”:
    link to nytimes.com

    Tom’s theory of course, runs parallel to the “Butterfly Affect.”

    Re:
    “By the way, I’m still waiting for that evidence I requested from you that confirms that a judge or legislator has ever relied on PTT in making a decision relating to the validity of a patent or patentability of an invention, such that it can be said that PTT “contributed materially to diminishing the historic strength of the system of American patents … .”

    In general, people, including jurors and other lay people, reporters, authors and professors, and officials in all three branches of government, do not rely on one source for making decisions. I would guess few, if any, relied solely on PTT to make patent related decisions.

    However, realistically speaking, who could deny that Mr. Frankel’s PTT set out to and did tilt the patent playing field by falsely representing itself “a good independent source of information” about the American patent system?
    Who could deny that PTT didn’t have the Butterfly Effect in juries’ or judges’ minds, in legislators’ minds, in administrators’ minds – who can deny that PTT did not influence reporters, authors and professors?

    I expect we can all, including Cisco systems’ Mark Chandler, agree that Rick Frankel, one of Cisco’s in-house patent attorneys, lacked professional judgment by anonymously operating PTT, a blog with the purpose of defaming non-practicing patent owners, while simultaneously operating multiple litigations for Cisco Systems involving patent infringement issues, the very “target” of PTT.

    Whether or not Mr. Frankel’s lack of judgment was or is actionable, tantamount to libel, is another question. Some, like me, believe so, and I you leave that his actions constituted an actionable tort.

    However, despite my belief, I can understand why other people
    – such as people who disapprove of making money with patented inventions the patent owners themselves do not practice
    – would disagree with people like me. They would rather believe that what Mr. Frankel did should be protected under the First Amendment of our Constitution despite his lack of professional judgment, despite the fact that he operated Cisco’s patent litigation while simultaneously anonymously operating PTT which was falsely represented to the Internet community et al., as “a good independent source of information” — PTT even hoodwinked Cisco’s General Counsel, Mark Chandler while Mr. Chandler was lobbying for patent reform in Washington.

    If an attorney of Mr. Chandler’s extraordinary caliber can be hoodwinked, then so can others be hoodwinked, including jurors and lay people, reporters, authors and professors, and judges, legislators and administrators.

  28. Actually, I did not agree that Frankel lied about who he was. I simply said it did not matter. You have presented no evidence that he did so.

    JAOI, you really should not opine on the law when you have demonstrated time and again on this blog that you do not understand it.

  29. JAOI,

    You are quite right. I was not precise. I simply assumed you were intelligent enough to grasp my meaning.

    What I should have said is was he lying or misleading when he wrote about patent cases or persons involved, particularly the present case. If not, no fraud.

    I reiterate – the identity and purpose of the speaker is irrelevant.

  30. The more I think about it, based on years of experience dealing primarily with IP attorneys it is pretty clear that a “neutral IP attorney with no ulterior motive, no particular agenda” would be HIGHLY unordinary.

  31. Ah, now we’re in familiar territory. As you gain experience taking depositions, you learn that it is crucial for creating a clean and useful record that you be sensitive to when the deponent’s words change from the words you used in your question or from what the deponent said before. All along you’ve been ranting about how Frankel committed “fraud” because he said that he was just an ordinary IP attorney (never, I point out, explicitly stating what you believe was unordinary about him). Now you’ve said “We all know Rick Frankel represented himself on the anonymous PTT as a *neutral IP attorney with no ulterior motive, no particular agenda.*”

    “ordinary IP attorney” != “neutral IP attorney with no ulterior motive, no particular agenda”

    If you disagree with this, then I propose that no ordinary IP attorneys exist anywhere. And his agenda of exposing what he believed to be gross abuses of the American patent system was pretty clear.

    By the way, I’m still waiting for that evidence I requested from you that confirms that a judge or legislator has ever relied on PTT in making a decision relating to the validity of a patent or patentability of an invention, such that it can be said that PTT “contributed materially to diminishing the historic strength of the system of American patents … .”

  32. Lionel,

    Please pardon the partial repetition in my comment — I don’t have the faintest how that happened. I’ll have to cut back on my “lubrication.”

  33. Dear Mr. Dhuey,

    Is it not possible that the crying was persuasive?

    I mean, if there were women on the jury, they probably would have loved it.

    I’d like to have seen the jury’s faces during that testimony — good litigators, and I am sure Cisco’s attorneys were top notch, can read that kind of thing like a book.

    My guess is Mr. Eric Albritton’s settlement was seven figures or at least close to it, but as you say, will never know for sure.

  34. By the way Lionel, I did not mean to insult you with the dumb blonde joke – we cross-posted.

    You may recall I often try to lighten things up with some form of humor.

  35. Dear Lionel,

    Please don’t get huffy just because you tripped yourself up.

    It was you who suggested that I do have a case when you wrote, and I quote:

    “Unless he [Rick Frankel] lied or was deliberately misleading, you have no case.”

    We all know Rick Frankel represented himself on the anonymous PTT as a neutral IP attorney with no ulterior motive, no particular agenda. And that’s why you choke answering my question:

    • “Was that a lie?”

    in the affirmative by writing, and I quote:

    “Lying about who you are online is not actionable.”
    At least you have now admitted, at least tacitly, that Mr. Frankel lied online.

    It was William Shakespeare who coined the phrase in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
    “Hoist with his own petard”. If the shoe fits…

    Re:
    “How dense are you?”

    I’ll answer that like so – about as dense as you are my friend.
    Take two Asperina and write me in the morning.
    You’ll thank me later.

    PS:
    If you can, please cite me case law, some rule or some authority or otherwise that, “Lying about who you are online is not actionable.”

    Or did you Just fabricate that absurd notion out of whole cloth.
    by writing, and I quote:

    “Lying about who you are online is not actionable.”

    At least you have now admitted, at least tacitly, that Mr. Frankel lied online.

    It was William Shakespeare who coined the phrase in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
    “Hoist with his own petard”. If the shoe fits…

    Re:
    “How dense are you?”

    I’ll answer that like so – about as dense as you are my friend.
    Take two Asperina and write me in the morning.
    You’ll thank me later.

    PS:
    If you can, please cite me case law, some rule or some authority or otherwise that,

    “Lying about who you are online is not actionable.”

    Or did you Just fabricate that absurd notion out of whole cloth?, (I’ll bet you did).

  36. Dear Lionel,

    Please answer my question(s) posed above, repeated here:

    Re:
    “Unless he lied or was deliberately misleading, you have no case.”

    I do not think you are taking into account that Cisco’s agent and house counsel, Rick Frankel, represented himself on the anonymous PTT as an ordinary IP attorney with no ulterior motive.

    • Was that true?,

    • or was that a lie?,

    • or was it deliberately misleading?

  37. I’m with you, 100% Pure Protected Opinion. I can see how a patent litigator would be quite angry about a false accusation of fraudulent and/or criminal conduct, but this crying business is a bit much — especially in court. If I were a client, I’d expect more emotional durability in my litigator.

  38. “However, I fail to understand how you come to be in possession of this information unless this anonymous commenter happens to be one of your sockpuppets.”

    I figured it out. If you frequent the patent blogs you’ve seen some of his own original “work”. If you’d like his name I can be reached at examiner6k@yahoo.com. Or if you’d like me to hold your hand through the process of figuring out who he is for yourself I can also do that.

    I haven’t decided if I should charge for this service yet or not. Perhaps it is worth it to JAOI to buy me off preemptively? Personally I think preventing his name going up in print in public associated with the JAOI moniker would be worth his sending me a couple thousand of his ill gotten millions. Cost of doing his PR business and all that.

    Alas, he apparently does not see it that way.

    If Frankel is reading, I will give it to you no charge. And sorry about setting Anonymous on your trail. That was my bad.

    Thanks for the assist with stanch JAOI.

  39. Hi Number Six,

    Main Entry: stanch
    Variant(s): or staunch /’stonch, ‘stänch/
    Function: transitive verb
    1 : to check or stop the flowing of ; also : to stop the flow of blood from (a wound)
    2 archaic : ALLAY, EXTINGUISH
    3 a : to stop or check in its course b : to make watertight : stop up

    Do you have a sister named “Trixie”?

    link to reelzchannel.com

  40. “Actually he has, if you consider obtaining patents “inventing”.”

    Then I stand corrected. However, I fail to understand how you come to be in possession of this information unless this anonymous commenter happens to be one of your sockpuppets.

  41. Now, if Frankel had represented himself as an alien from mars, well, then we might have REAL FRAUD. Amirite JAOI?

    “Meanwhile, you represent yourself as an “ordinary inventor” but in fact you’ve never invented a damm thing in your life.”

    Actually he has, if you consider obtaining patents “inventing”. However, he is by no means an “ordinary inventor” in any sense of the word.

    JAOI is here to attempt to staunch the flow of royalties he could be making if not for pesky folks like SCOTUS.

  42. -However, Rick Frankel represented himself on the anonymous PTT as an ordinary IP attorney with no ulterior motive.

    -I have no reason to doubt that Frenkel represented his own opinions.

    If Frenkel was representing his own opinions, then the rest of your assertion is really irrelevant. Maybe your definition of “ordinary IP attorney” is different than mine, but I don’t see how having an employer makes Frenkel out of the ordinary, nor does his plausible agreement with their interests constitute an ulterior motive.

    So was it true/a lie/misleading? Yes, no, and no. For it to be misleading, he would have to lead one to believe something other than the truth. As far as I am aware(please correct me if I have missed something), he didn’t state that his opinions were not in agreement with Cisco, nor did he state that he didn’t work for Cisco, so I don’t see where he misled anyone, deliberately or otherwise.

  43. JAOI, what you fail to recognize is that it doesn’t matter how Frenkel represented himself. He could have represented himself as an “ordinary inventor” with no legal background whatsoever. It doesn’t matter. He provided facts and provided reasonable (as well as entertaining) commentary based on those facts.

    Meanwhile, you represent yourself as an “ordinary inventor” but in fact you’ve never invented a damm thing in your life. Moreover, “ordinary” inventors don’t flood blog comments week after week with their paranoid fantasies. So if anyone is guilty of fraud, it’s you.

  44. “• Was that true?,

    • or was that a lie?,

    • or was it deliberately misleading?”

    Yes, no, no.

    Facts are facts JAOI, here in the banana republic where the truth is the truth.

    “most professionals think the owner of a valid patent, whether he is the inventor or not, is entitled to make money with a valid patent by any honest means. ”

    According to the survey that JAOI did back in 2008 of all professionals in the world.

    “I have practiced some of my inventions and I have attempted to license other of my inventions.”

    That’s what I thought. But a paper about you didn’t mention your under the table licensing deals. Funny that. Perhaps you didn’t want to be associated with trolls?

  45. Dear annms,

    Re:
    “I completely comprehend your asserted conclusion, but what I don’t understand is the evidence you have that Frenkel was not representing himself or his opinions?”

    I have no reason to doubt that Frenkel represented his own opinions.
    Nor have I ever suggested otherwise.
    Nor do I have any reason to doubt that Frenkel’s opinions were parallel to Cisco’s anti-patent troll agenda.

    However, Rick Frankel represented himself on the anonymous PTT as an ordinary IP attorney with no ulterior motive. Please answer this:

    • Was Frankel’s representation true?,

    • or was it a lie?,

    • or was it deliberately misleading?

  46. “Too bad that’s not a cause of action for the rest of us against Albritton (and Ward).”

    Actually Dan it is a cause of action for the rest of us against Albritton and Ward.

    It just isn’t cause for legal action. There are a lot of actions in this world.

  47. It is difficult to believe that Albritton cried on the stand. A grown man and by all accounts an aggressive litigator CRIED in front of everybody? I mean, people said all along he was a big crybaby but … literally?! I wonder if Johnny will manage to pull off a similar feat in his case against Cisco, or perhaps the findings in this case will inspire Johnny to pull the plug.

    The other interesting part of Albritton’s performance was when he “looked at the jury” and told them that Cisco “picked a fight and I’m finishing it.” Whoa, tough guy! Correct me if I’m wrong, but did Cisco sue one of Albritton’s clients first, or was it the other way around?

    In any case, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Albritton has not succeeded in “finishing” anything related to this “fight”. On the contrary, he opened up a juicy can of worms. The spotlight now shines on him and Johnny Ward Junior and the family venue as bright as ever, if not brighter. Then again, bananas grow well under those conditions.

    What a deeply silly man.

  48. Dear Lionel,

    Re:
    “Unless he lied or was deliberately misleading, you have no case.”

    I do not think you are taking into account that Cisco’s agent and house counsel, Rick Frankel, represented himself on the anonymous PTT as an ordinary IP attorney with no ulterior motive.

    • Was that true?,

    • or was that a lie?,

    • or was it deliberately misleading?

    Re:
    “If you are a shell company or a lemuelson type than you deserve derision.”

    You are of course entitled to think whatever you want. A patent is an inventor’s tool to make money — most professionals think the owner of a valid patent, whether he is the inventor or not, is entitled to make money with a valid patent by any honest means.
    Cisco et al. deserves derision, not honest patent owners. In my opinion Cisco has the scruples of a scoundrel, and it would stoop to disreputable levels if it could get away with it to increase their profit. Believe it or not, that’s up to you.

    Moreover my friend, you don’t even know what the common usage of “patent troll” entails!

    I have practiced some of my inventions and I have attempted to license other of my inventions. Cisco and others who defame inventors by labeling them trolls use this pejorative term to encompass nonpracticing inventors as well as a “shell company or a lemuelson type.” Now you know.

    Would you have me believe that I am not entitled to license my inventions unless I also practice them?

    With all due respect, please, pull your head out and smell the coffee.™

    PS:
    Yes it is true, sometimes I’m thickheaded – but not about these issues.

  49. -Rick Frenkel’s anonymous Patent Troll Tracker blog’s was Cisco’s spin!

    What about that don’t you comprehend?

    I completely comprehend your asserted conclusion, but what I don’t understand is the evidence you have that Frenkel was not representing himself or his opinions?

    If Frenkel stated or implied somewhere that his posts were not his opinion, then I missed it. However, being in agreement with your employer and expressing your shared viewpoint doesn’t seem to me to be fraudulent activity in itself.

  50. “Rick Frenkel’s anonymous Patent Troll Tracker blog’s was Cisco’s spin!

    What about that don’t you comprehend?”

    No, that’s a conclusion you are prepared to jump to because of your irrational bias.

    BUT, even assuming your conclusion is 100% true so what? Seri8ously. Either you agreed with the guy or you did not. Unless he lied or was deliberately misleading, you have no case.

    Further, why are you so concerned with Mr. Frankel. If you are an actual inventor then you should have no problem with Mr. Frankel. If you are a shell company or a lemuelson type than you deserve derision.

  51. JAOI,

    I do believe arguing with you is hopeless as you seem unable to reason sometimes. First, spin is hardly illegal or fraud. Second, it’s only troubling if it’s a clear distortion of factual events or deliberately misleading if not an outright lie. Can you please identify a distortion of events and not just a difference of opinion between you and Mr. Frankel.

  52. Dear annms,

    link to en.wikipedia.org
    “In public relations, “spin” is sometimes a pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one’s own favour of an event or situation. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. Politicians are often accused of spin by commentators and political opponents, when they produce a counter argument or position.”

    Rick Frenkel’s anonymous Patent Troll Tracker blog’s was Cisco’s spin!

    What about that don’t you comprehend?

    Cisco’s PTT was used to defame independent nonpracticing patent holders for his employer-client, Cisco Systems, and by doing so they were advancing Cisco’s corporate agenda and tampering with the jury pool and the judges involved in infringement litigation brought on by independent patent holders.

    Please, pull your head out and smell the coffee.™

  53. -Rick Frankel, did by representing himself as an ordinary IP attorney with no ulterior motive

    What does that even mean? Are you saying he’s not an IP attorney? Are you saying all other IP attorneys have no “ulterior motive” when posting things on the interwebs? Are you saying that because he’s an IP attorney who works for a corporation, he is incapable of having his own thoughts and motives?

    And what if he was just an ordinary IP attorney? Would that make his actions that you see as damaging (fraudulent or otherwise) less damaging?

    Just wondering why having a boss automatically makes this guy a sock puppet.

  54. Dear Mr. Dhuey,

    Re:
    “My wild guess is that the deal included the apology plus nothing or very little else from Cisco to Mr. Albritton. This has the look of a face-saving overture from Mr. Albritton. Again, just guesses with no claim that I actually know the terms of the deal — so no suing me, okay?

    I suspect we’ll never know the actual terms of the deal.”

    Of course you are right — we’ll never know the actual terms of the deal. But isn’t it more logical to think that Mr. Albritton wouldn’t let Cisco off the hook with paying through the nose? I mean Texans don’t like there great state being called a Banana Republic. Frenkel displayed the judgment of a worm to make that remark – what a jerk.

  55. Dear Lionel,

    Re:
    “The intent or identity of the source DOES NOT MATTER.”

    If you really believe that you are hopeless. But I think you are just trying to pull my chain. See if you can comprehend the meaning of “spin,” and then see if you can connect the dots — here is an excerpt from this link:

    link to en.wikipedia.org
    . . . . . . . . . .

    Spin
    In public relations, “spin” is sometimes a pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one’s own favour of an event or situation. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. Politicians are often accused of spin by commentators and political opponents, when they produce a counter argument or position.

    The techniques of “spin”s include selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one’s position (cherry picking), the so-called “non-denial denial,” phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths, euphemisms for drawing attention away from items considered distasteful, and ambiguity in public statements. Another spin technique involves careful choice of timing in the release of certain news so it can take advantage of prominent events in the news. A famous reference to this practice occurred when British Government press officer Jo Moore used the phrase It’s now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury, (widely paraphrased or misquoted as “It’s a good day to bury bad news”), in an email sent on September 11, 2001. The furor caused when this email was reported in the press eventually caused her to resign.
    . . . . . . . . . .

    What Cisco’s agent and house counsel, Rick Frankel, did by representing himself as an ordinary IP attorney with no ulterior motive, was fraud. Cisco’s PTT blog’s purposes were comprised of predisposing people against independent inventors by painting them as trolls preying on victims — that’s why Cisco called it “Patent Troll Tracker.”

    THAT MISREPRESENTATION WAS TANTAMOUNT TO A BOLDFACE LIE AND IT AMOUNTED TO FRAUD. Frenkel’s anonymous Patent Troll Tracker blog’s purpose was to defame independent nonpracticing patent holders for his employer-client, Cisco Systems, and by doing so they were advancing Cisco’s corporate agenda and tampering with the jury pool and the judges involved in infringement litigation brought on by independent patent holders.

    Please read my comments above, but first take the blinders off and leave your bias in the crapper where it belongs. Here’s one for you:
    link to patentlyo.com

  56. JAOI wrote

    “Frankel represented himself as an ordinary
    attorney interested in IP.
    THAT WAS A BOLDFACE LIE AND IT AMOUNTED TO FRAUD”

    Two responses:

    (1) NO IT WASN’T

    and

    (2) EVEN IF IT WAS, IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FRAUD. The intent or identity of the source DOES NOT MATTER. Unless he fabricated information, who cares.

  57. Whether or not the suit actually cost Rick Frankel in $$, it costs the rest of us in the form of the TT blog being taken down. Too bad that’s not a cause of action for the rest of us against Albritton (and Ward).

  58. My wild guess is that the deal included the apology plus nothing or very little else from Cisco to Mr. Albritton. This has the look of a face-saving overture from Mr. Albritton. Again, just guesses with no claim that I actually know the terms of the deal — so no suing me, okay?

    I suspect we’ll never know the actual terms of the deal.

  59. “And the Academy Award for best actor in an all-male melodrama goes to …”

    That’s what I thought after I read that sht.

    “I still can’t believe the dude cried on the stand. Now we know what really happens when you mess with Texas.”

    This is also what I thought. I mean seriously, who cries about someone having said they, at most, committed a procedural no no that isn’t even a no no if the clerk does it?

    Btw, it is obvious that Frenkel came out on top in this exchange, just look at the pictures of the two men. Do you think the man at the top would stand a chance of collecting?

    link to setexasrecord.com

  60. I’m with Big Hairy Rat. Albritton probably got a mere pittance given that the jury was instructed that they would have to find actual malice to award punitives. What he really got, which may be what he was really after all along, was a public apology:
    ——————————————————
    Cisco issued a statement Tuesday morning in which it said the dispute between the parties “has been resolved to their mutual satisfaction, and Rick Frenkel and Cisco apologize for the statements of Rick Frenkel on the Troll Tracker blog regarding Eric M. Albritton.”
    ——————————————————

  61. I expect that Cisco paid Albritton’s attorneys’ fees (and little or nothing more) to avoid the risk of the case going to the jury and the resulting cost of the probable appeal.

  62. Great article here in the Southeast Texas Record, where “the truth is the truth.”

    link to setexasrecord.com
    __________________________

    When she realized the complaint was stamped Oct. 15, the legal assistant said she called the district clerk’s office to request a change. The Texarkana deputy district clerk told the assistant that she would not change the date. …According to the deputy clerk’s testimony, the legal assistant said that she could not file a motion, “I have to have the date changed.”

    U.S. District Clerk David Maland testified that Albritton’s legal assistant requested that the records be changed to reflect the Oct. 16 filing date and he agreed to change the date.

    In his testimony, Maland concluded that he should have instructed the Tyler docket clerk to tell Albritton to file a motion to correct the docket instead of “having the deputy clerk do a correcting entry.” ….

    The Eastern District of Texas has a reputation among intellectual property lawyers as a plaintiff-friendly court for patent infringement cases.

    ….

    Albritton testified that posts have not caused him to seek medical care or the loss of any friends or business….The plaintiff testified that the posts caused humiliation, worry, sleepless nights and may have hurt his work performance. The defendants pointed out that Albritton’s business has increased since 2007 and there is no clear evidence of any other damages.

    With the jury out of the room, the lawyers discussed how much questioning surrounding Albritton’s personal life to allow. In an attempt to show the posts have not interfered with his life, the defense wanted to question Albritton about his international vacations, vacation home and the stress of building a new primary residence….

    Judge Schell agreed with the defendants that the issue is a matter of public concern, official actions taken by public officials, “public duties with respect to publicly filed documents in the public court records of the federal judiciary.”
    _____________________________

    Bottom line here appears to be that Albritton was going to lose and lose big. I wonder if part of the settlement was an agreement that Frenkel/Cisco not sue Albritton? If so, then I doubt much money was exchanged. Perhaps Frenkel simply gritted his teeth and told Albritton, “I am sorry if you were offended by my comments.” If Frenkel did agree to pay anything, he might consider putting up a link for PayPal donations. Many of us in the community of ordinary patent attorneys without vacation homes would be happy to help defray the costs.

    I still can’t believe the dude cried on the stand. Now we know what really happens when you mess with Texas.

  63. link to thepriorart.typepad.com

    ******* ******* *******

    “This has affected me,” said Albritton. “Maybe it shouldn’t. I’m sure Cisco thinks I’m thin-skinned. I feel like the world thinks I’m not honorable, at least, people that don’t know me. I’m humiliated by it. I’ve had sleepless nights.” …

    “There are days I’ve got ten hours of work to do and I can only get five hours of work done,” said Albritton, removing his glasses and wiping his eyes. “They should be punished for what they did. Not only did they not apologize, they want to keep calling me a criminal [by arguing the posts are true.]“…

    “It does call me a criminal,” said Albritton. “There’s no legitimate dispute.”

    “That’s your position,” said Babcock.

    “It’s the truth!” said Albritton. “Truth is truth in East Texas, Mr. Babcock.”

    ******** ********* *********

    And the Academy Award for best actor in an all-male melodrama goes to ….

  64. JAOI “Before the Cisco defamation campaign, inventing was considered an interesting and honorable (although maybe unusual), profession.”

    I don’t think Frenkel’s blog had any impact on the perception of “inventors” whatsoever. It wasn’t really about crappy “inventors”. It was mainly about patent trolls, i.e., money-grubbing shell corps and their sleazoid schemes to extract money from deep-pocketed companies by exploiting weaknesses in the US patent system.

    Instead of whining about a non-existent blog that did very little or nothing to impact the public perception of inventors, why not direct your inane rambling at blogs like 12:01 Tuesday link to 1201tuesday.com that illustrate exactly why the US patent system may be fairly viewed as a broken joke? The most recent post related to 7,593,860, a trainwreck of a patent that attempts to claim (in purely functional terms) a computerized method of receiving data from a job candidate, computing a bunch of numbers and (1000 hand-waves later) “performing an action for said job candidate based on results…”

    And who is the assignee of this vapid cumulonimbus cloud of crud? Why, none other than Big Blue itself, the former home of the current head of the USPTO.

    If your dream is for the junk patent bubble to be re-inflated, your wishes may have come true. Ordinary inventors — and especially less-than-ordinary inventors — should rejoice.

  65. Dear Ed Welch,

    Re:
    “Frenkel gave us an opportunity to take into consideration another perspective: whether we agree or disagree with that perspective. HOWEVER HE PORTRAYED HIMSELF IS IRRELEVANT: what is important is that we were presented with another viewpoint that we might not otherwise have considered and that is important! To lose that perspective is a loss for us all.” (Emphasis added)

    Patent attorneys, and others involved in IP, can form their own educated opinions about patentability, damages, injunctions, patent law etc.
    Most such educated opinions reflect natural human bias, i.e., independent inventors like myself prefer strong patent rights, while patents infringers prefer weak patent rights.

    Other people involved in IP have no “dog in the fight,” they have no vested interest in, e.g., the state of patent rights, or on the outcome of a patent infringement trial. These other people comprise jurors and judges alike, other court staff, etc.

    These “Other people involved in IP” have been influenced for years by Cisco, its Coalition et al. In comparison, my postings on this blog comprise David fighting Goliath Cisco.

    Can anybody tell me with a straight face that what Cisco et al. as done over the past years didn’t predispose “These Other people involved in IP” against independent inventors?

    And what about other American citizens that have read the myriad anti-independent inventor (troll) articles and Op Eds over the past few years in newspapers and magazines, TV shows and radio, the Internet and other forms of media?

    I go to a party or sit at a bar and engage in light conversation with people I meet, and often the question comes up, Well, what you do? More than once I’ve said I’m an inventor and, as the discussion evolved I’ve been asked, are you one of those troll inventors?, or are you one of the good guys?

    That ain’t right! Before the Cisco defamation campaign, inventing was considered an interesting and honorable (although maybe unusual), profession.

    What Cisco’s agent, Frankel, did by representing himself as an ordinary attorney interested in IP, was fraud, and its purposes were comprised of predisposing people against independent inventors by painting them as trolls — that’s why they called it “Patent Troll Tracker.” As I said above:

    THAT WAS A BOLDFACE LIE AND IT AMOUNTED TO FRAUD. The Patent Troll Tracker blog’s purpose was to defame independent nonpracticing patent holders for his employer-client, Cisco Systems, and by doing so they were advancing Cisco’s corporate agenda and tampering with the jury pool and the judges involved in infringement litigation brought on by independent patent holders.

  66. “[The] Texas jury will find for the plaintiff based on the “Bannana Republic of East Texas” comment alone,..”

    Oh, the irony.

  67. “By the way, I use this speech recognition software:…”

    Well, that may explain the rambling, stream of consciousness style of your posts.

  68. By the way, I use this speech recognition software:

    DEAL OF THE DAY

    Nuance Dragon NaturallySpeaking v.10.0 Standard – Voice Recognition – Complete Product – Standard – 1 User – Mini Box Retail – PC
    * * *
    It’s on sale today on

    link to buy.com

    for $31.99, a real bargain.

  69. Dear Lionel Hutz,

    With all due respect, if you are going to criticize my opinions please do so in a professional way.
    On what planet does this comment of mine:

    “… contributed materially to diminishing the historic strength…”

    equate to your interpretation thereof:

    “I didn’t know that PTT could make or enforce laws?”

    * * * * *

    Re:
    “What part of that constitutes fraud?”

    Before sticking your foot in your mouth and embarrassing yourself my friend, perhaps you should read my comments above. Here’s what I wrote to the Mr. Humorless Democrat (please note in particular the paragraph with the line in caps):

    Dear Humorless Democrat,

    Re:
    “I have yet to see where Frankel got even one asserted fact wrong.”

    Whether or not Frankel got the facts right or wrong is not the fundamental issue.

    Frankel represented himself as an ordinary attorney interested in IP.
    THAT WAS A BOLDFACE LIE AND IT AMOUNTED TO FRAUD. The Patent Troll Tracker blog’s purpose was to defame independent nonpracticing patent holders for his employer-client, Cisco Systems, and by doing so they were advancing Cisco’s corporate agenda and tampering with the jury pool and the judges involved in infringement litigation brought on by independent patent holders.

    Prior to the widespread defamation, we independent inventors generally enjoyed the reputation of being bright, creative, productive and valuable American citizens. Our reputation has been fraudulently and libelously sullied by Cisco et al.

    Corporations like Cisco enter broad cross licensing agreements with their competitors to minimize their exposure to patents held in their fields. This is counterproductive to innovation – cross licensing does not “promote the Progress of science.”

    And by likening independent inventors to trolls, they have also diminished their infringement exposure to our inventions. This too is counterproductive to innovation.

    * * * * *
    What I wrote above is worth repeating:

    It is disingenuous to attempt to deny the fact that Rick Frenkel, the “Cisco Kid,” was a “Cisco agent!,” and that the PTT blog was used to further Cisco’s corporate agenda!

    Cisco’s Patent Troll Tracker blog contributed materially to diminishing the historic strength of the system of American patents, and in particular to the rights of self-employed, non-practicing Inventors.

    Goliath Cisco, and all its corporate might, perpetrated the defamation of independent Inventors by broadly propagandizing its lopsided anti-patent agenda to American citizens and government officials by infiltrating all avenues of our Nation’s media. America’s strong patent system suffered greatly due to the leadership of Cisco and its followers in the Coalition for Patent Fairness, et al.

    These are the facts, and they are not in dispute.

    Posted by: Just an ordinary inventor(TM) | Sep 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM
    * * * * *

    A fair-minded professional might disagree with the degree of blame I place at Cisco’s doorstep. However, my opinions are based in fact and those facts are not in dispute.

    Of course, those who want to dummy down the American patent system, especially the patent rights for independent inventors, will have different opinions, some of which will also be based in fact.

    * * * * *

    Here are more of my opinions:
    Anybody who thinks that years of extensive defamation of a particular class of inventors

    by Cisco, the Coalition for Patent Fairness, et al.,

    as troll like creatures preying on victims

    via legal lobbying and “in camera” meetings on the Hill, in Agencies in Washington and Virginia, etc.,

    infiltrating every form of American media imaginable,

    especially the Internet and especially the patent blogs,

    had not succeeded in accomplishing their mission, including materially damaging the reputation of independent inventors,

    in the minds of American citizens,

    IP professionals,

    patent office staff and management,

    other government officials and legislators

    and juries deliberating patent infringement cases,

    as well as Clerks and Justices in our courtrooms, including those who work in the Supreme Court at One First Street*,

    [Anybody who thinks Cisco et al. didn't accomplish their defamation mission]

    ought to “pull their head out and smell the coffee.”™

    * * * * *

    Some have opined above that “all that we have is our reputation.”

    LIONEL, wouldn’t you be furious if someone overtly, covertly and fraudulently besmirched your reputation with many years of expensive professional defamation of your particular class of lawyers?

    * Perhaps Professor Crouch could tell us how many hits Patently-O has gotten on an annual basis from the Court House at One First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20543

  70. What a shame, another key source of information shut down by those who oppose his views. We are barraged day in and day out by views from the left, from the right, from Fox News, from CNN, from MSNBC, etc., all with their own take and slant on what they are presenting. Sadly, if we silence any one, we lose one more perspective that helps us sift through the mass of information thrown at us in the hope that we may arrive at what may be the closest thing to reality. Frenkel gave us an opportunity to take into consideration another perspective: whether we agree or disagree with that perspective. However he portrayed himself is irrelevant: what is important is that we were presented with another viewpoint that we might not otherwise have considered and that is important! To lose that perspective is a loss for us all.

    Turning aside from the defamation suit, as a non-litigator I am curious as to what the customary practice is in the Easter District and elsewhere relative to electronic filings. Is the date of the filing the date on which the filing begins or the date on which it is completed. What date does the US PTO give electronic filings? If this were a case where a Statute of Limitations was at issue, plaintiff’s lawyer would be arguing vehemently that he should be entitled to the date on which the filing was initiated rather than the date on which it was completed. Grant them the earlier date and no harm you say! Of course there’s harm, the defendant has to defend a case that otherwise was too late. Deny it and the plaintiff loses his day in court. It’s no different in the Cisco case, not a matter of whether there is a case, but where it would be held

  71. Another winner from JAOI

    “Cisco’s Patent Troll Tracker blog contributed materially to diminishing the historic strength of the system of American patents, and in particular to the rights of self-employed, non-practicing Inventors. ”

    Really? I didn’t know that PTT could make or enforce laws? I thought the posts were just reports and opinions. Apparently, criticizing the patent system should be outlawed in JAOI’s eyes.

  72. JAOI wrote

    “The opinions opined by the Cisco Kid were in fact condoned by a plurality of Cisco Officials — moreover all responsibility for the blasphemous PTT has been accepted legally by Cisco!

    The Cisco Kid’s personal views are irrelevant! He was paid by Cisco, and he carried out Cisco’s agenda — what more need be said be said?

    And when Cisco officials went to Washington saying PTT was an independent opinion, that was bs, fraud, with a capital “F”. Again, the Cisco kid’s personal views are/were irrelevant.”

    What part of that constitutes fraud?

  73. On another note.

    Mooney used to monopolize the posts around here, often posting up to 50 percent or more (gee I wonder how/why). Given that I don’t think he has gone away, I wonder how many of the posts here are from the poster known as Mooney. Especially the ones “sypmathetic to the plight of another blogger.”

    Deductive reasoning is a powerful thing.

  74. In my opinion, if anyone has/had an ego problem it was PTT.

    I agree with the poster who reminded the dullards around here that a practicing attorney, as distinguished from, say, a law professor or blogger, has only his reputation.

    Ridiculous indeed.

    And anyone who doesn’t think a Texas jury will find for the plaintiff based on the “Bannana Republic of East Texas” comment alone, has obviously never spent any time around Texans.

    Hint: don’t mess with Texas. Case closed.

  75. “This is an expected twist to Cisco’s shenanigans which perhaps explains why Joe Mullin’s coverage is so favorable to Frankel.”

    Becaise it’s just sooooooo unexpected and inexplicable that one blog author would appear sympathetic to another blog author who was sued by vindictive crybaby lawyers because he told the truth.

    The world’s dwindling tin supply called. They want to know where you got your hat.

  76. This is an expected twist to Cisco’s shenanigans which perhaps explains why Joe Mullin’s coverage is so favorable to Frankel. Is Mullin a journalist or a PR hack for one or more corporations?

  77. I find the assertion that Joe Mullin has picked up where Rick Frankel left off, perhaps with some anonymous help very interesting and I am looking forward to learning much more about this.

  78. JAOI wrote: “Cisco’s Patent Troll Tracker blog contributed materially to diminishing the historic strength of the system of American patents, and in particular to the rights of self-employed, non-practicing Inventors.”

    Do you ever actually back up anything you say, or is it just nonstop unsubstantiated hyperbolic ranting? What was the material contribution? I will accept that you have proved a material contribution if you can cite to even one shred of evidence that a judge or legislator relied on PTT in the course of invalidating a patent or proposing legislation making it easier to invalidate a patent or harder to obtain one.

  79. I’ll tell you what “odom o snap” is if you’ll tell first whether or not Frankel wasn’t but one voice against NPE’s trolling activities (forum shopping et cetera), pure pro bad litigation.

  80. JAOI

    1. No reasonable person is going to uncritically accept what is said by an anonymous poster on a blog. Who do you say it was who believed that PTT was somehow a completely independent voice and acted on that belief?

    2. The significant changes in patent law have all come from SCOTUS. Are you saying that SCOTUS somehow fell under Frankel’s spell?

    3. You criticize cross licencing. If IBM, AT&T and Cisco want to cross licence the patents they own then that is their perfect right – or do you only believe in patent rights for the self proclaimed little guy?

    4. The logic of your posts appears to be: Cisco lobbied for changes to the patent system and in doing so besmirched the reputation of independent inventors, therefor Cisco should lose the libel action brought by the lawyer Albritton. Like Jules, I do not follow the jump in your logic.

  81. Dear No. Six,

    I am but one voice against Cisco’s Coalition’s Crap!, pure anti-patent hyperbole propaganda!

    (what is odom o snap?}

  82. “Uhhh I am a little new to this defamation thing, but if all the facts are known and the wrong (alleged defamatroy) label is applied at in summation of the facts what exactly are the aggrieved party’s damages?”

    Depression over damaged reputation led to months-long eating binge. Entire wardrobe needed to be replaced and bathroom required substantial structural reinforcement. Cost > $45,000.

  83. Well patent litigator I have one reformatory rule that will fix patent problems once and forever. With respect to patents:

    LOSER PAYS ALL (Period!!!) costs, court fees opposing party’s fees etc. The problem with patents is problem with all other areas of law . . . litigation. Because there is no binding arbitration this is one area where the litigators have not been shut out by arbitration clauses. Moreover, perhaps we should have a Federal Arbitration Panel to handle ALL patent disputes.

    In this manneBy having loser pays all, however, knowlege is publicized by the filing of patent applications and frivolous lawsuits are ended by the threat of self-annihilation.

  84. Uhhh I am a little new to this defamation thing, but if all the facts are known and the wrong (alleged defamatroy) label is applied at in summation of the facts what exactly are the aggrieved party’s damages?

  85. “This is counterproductive to innovation – cross licensing does not “promote the Progress of science.””

    LOL WUT? How about the useful arts? Does it promote those?

    “Our reputation has been fraudulently and libelously sullied by Cisco et al.”

    What about all the fraudulent and libelous sullying you do of Cisco and Frankel under the anonymous psuedonym “ordinary inventor”? Frankel is just as much an ordinary lawyer as you are an ordinary inventor.

    Your facts might not be in dispute, but my dispute is in your facts killing your points.

  86. Dear Humorless Democrat,

    Re:
    “I have yet to see where Frankel got even one asserted fact wrong.”

    Whether or not Frankel got the facts right or wrong is not the fundamental issue.

    Frankel represented himself as an ordinary attorney interested in IP.

    THAT WAS A BOLDFACE LIE AND IT AMOUNTED TO FRAUD. The Patent Troll Tracker blog’s purpose was to defame independent nonpracticing patent holders for his employer-client, Cisco Systems, and by doing so they were advancing Cisco’s corporate agenda and tampering with the jury pool and the judges involved in infringement litigation brought on by independent patent holders.

    Prior to the widespread defamation, we independent inventors generally enjoyed the reputation of being bright, creative, productive and valuable American citizens. Our reputation has been fraudulently and libelously sullied by Cisco et al.

    Corporations like Cisco enter broad cross licensing agreements with their competitors to minimize their exposure to patents held in their fields. This is counterproductive to innovation – cross licensing does not “promote the Progress of science.”

    And by likening independent inventors to trolls, they have also diminished their infringement exposure to our inventions. This too is counterproductive to innovation.

    * * * * *

    What I wrote above is worth repeating:

    It is disingenuous to attempt to deny the fact that Rick Frenkel, the “Cisco Kid,” was a “Cisco agent!,” and that the PTT blog was used to further Cisco’s corporate agenda!

    Cisco’s Patent Troll Tracker blog contributed materially to diminishing the historic strength of the system of American patents, and in particular to the rights of self-employed, non-practicing Inventors.

    Goliath Cisco, and all its corporate might, perpetrated the defamation of independent Inventors by broadly propagandizing its lopsided anti-patent agenda to American citizens and government officials by infiltrating all avenues of our Nation’s media. America’s strong patent system suffered greatly due to the leadership of Cisco and its followers in the Coalition for Patent Fairness, et al.

    These are the facts, and they are not in dispute.

  87. IMHO, it was a mistake for Albritton to commence this law suit. It makes his reputation and his income before and after the PTT post matters that he must testify to and be cross-examined on. Since he admits that the filing was initiated (in some sense of that word) on October 15 it seems unlikely that he can win.

    As an aside – is the EDTX going to receive the evidence and listen to the cross-examination of one of its own court clerks?

  88. If he’s just doing this to shut up Rick Frankel, Eric Albritton should withdraw the suit. The TT did us all a service. And JAOI, before you start ranting again: I have yet to see where Frankel got even one asserted fact wrong.

    If Albritton’s doing this because he really thinks he was harmed, he should grow up and understand that the only thing that’s defaming him is his own behavior in this matter.

    (DC, let me know when you’re requested to give up my name.)

  89. Dennis, 6-

    Thanks for clarifying. In hindsight I should have realized the reason. The usual forum shopping concerns, plaintiff wants EDTX, defendant wants practically anywhere else.

  90. I don’t get it –
    all I see are blue dashed lines
    on both sides of his face.
    What’s that all about?
    What are the blue dashed lines?
    Is my PC missing something?,
    or am I?

  91. holy shi tolas! That’s just about the most awesome thing I’ve seen on this site to date!

    Faved.

    Can someone shoop him in some money in a shooped hand?

  92. I agree with High Blood Pressure. Seems to me the parties are playing one-upmanship games. In an ideal world, this kind of case would have no place in our legal system. But ego duels seem to rule all fields, and in this case even the court was not immune to the epidemic. Frenkel will just have to pick himself up, dust himself off, and move on. The way I’m going to move on to reading about valid patent litigation.
    GeneralPatent.com

  93. In my constitutionally protected, anonymous opinion, if a verdict is rendered for Eric Albritton, the Fifth Circuit will reverse quite easily. The case should have been thrown out on summary judgment, and it is a travesty that it was not. There is no dispute that what Frenkel said was true — Albritton’s firm convinced the clerk to change the docket sheet. Frenkel’s opinion was that that was improper is constitutionally protected (and almost certainly correct, by the way, as the appropriate way to fix a docket is to bring a motion, not to contact the clerk ex parte). Furthermore, the idea that by writing that Albritton’s firm “conspired” with the ED Texas somehow implies a crime is frivolous — a conspiracy, as such, is NOT a crime or even a tort. I can conspire with my coworkers to go to lunch without another coworker. That is not a crime.

  94. HE1100o 6 aka Fred,

    Re: “Hang on just a minute there Shaggy, cisco was also rushing to file and likely filed at 1201 on the proper day.”

    You wanna bet? The time stamp will tell!

    Re: “I see, so then someone who disagrees with you has their personal views deemed “irrelevant”? For a self proclaimed patriot/American you certainly hold some un-American and unpatriotic views JAOI.”

    It is disingenuous to attempt to deny the fact that Rick Frenkel, the “Cisco Kid,” was a “Cisco agent!,” and that the PTT blog was used to further Cisco’s corporate agenda!

    Cisco’s Patent Troll Tracker blog contributed materially to diminishing the historic strength of the system of American patents, and in particular to the rights of self-employed, non-practicing Inventors.

    Goliath Cisco, and all its corporate might, perpetrated the defamation of independent Inventors by broadly propagandizing its lopsided anti-patent agenda to American citizens and government officials by infiltrating all avenues of our Nation’s media. America’s strong patent system suffered greatly due to the leadership of Cisco and its followers in the Coalition for Patent Fairness, et al.

    These are the facts, and they are not in dispute.

  95. Kevin R., I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Given that almost everyone here is probably an attorney, we know very well the harm that defamation has on attorneys. We also know very well the harm that meritless defamation suits have on attorneys, even if the suit is ultimately dismissed on appeal. If people here seem to be missing the harm that defamation can cause, that is probably because, in this specific case: (1) there is no defamation, (2) as such, there is no actionable harm to Albritton, and (3) there has been rather tangible harm to Frenkel and free speech generally. In the interests of full disclosure, I know and have worked with Eric Albritton. He is a nice guy generally. I just strongly disagree with his actions here.

  96. This suit looks like nothing more than retaliation against a guy who tried to restore some sanity to our out-of-control patent system.

    As a patent litigator, I have several suggestions for reform.

    1. Codify the “flash of genius” test.

    2. Change the venue statute to require the plaintiff to show that the defendant has a connection to the forum state that is qualitatively different from its connection to any other state.

    3. Allow examiners to serve interrogatories and requests for admission on patent applicants, which must be answered in 30 days.

  97. So, according to Ward, what he and Albritton did wasn’t illegal, and it was defamatory for Frenkel to post something that could allow his readers to possibly come away with the mistaken conclusion that those guys were breaking the law.

    I can accept and believe that. I believe that they, with all their tiny little lizard hearts, don’t want to break the law, at least not in a visible way. I can also give them the benefit of the doubt on this particular issue and even agree that, if the judge says they weren’t bending the law, they weren’t.

    But, no matter what, I think they are thin-skinned, unrepentant miscreants who immorally (even if barely legally) prey on true innovators, and that, at this very moment, they are cynically trying to convince a jury that the shame is shared and everybody in East Texas has been smeared with it. If I were the defense attorney, I would have tried to introduce how much money those folks made the last few years — I’m sure they are crying those big old crocodile tears all the way to the bank.

    It will be interesting to see if the East Texas jury does the right thing, or if their financial self-interest has blinded them to true morality. The world awaits their judgment.

  98. “all that we have is our reputation.”

    Is that what you think this case is about?

    Every patent attorney I’ve talked to about this case believes that the plaintiffs here are lashing out for reasons that have less to do with those stated in the complaint and more to do with childish spite. You think this effect was not discussed by the plaintiffs (or their attorneys) before filing the lawsuit? I suppose it’s possible. Some people have egos that are so enormous they become blind to how others perceive them. Who among us has not known a partner in a law firm who suffers from this defect?

    So Frenkel’s blog is done, for now. That hardly stops him from doing research and passing facts to others who can publish the facts and comment themselves, nor does it stop Frenkel from facts to the comments sections of other blogs directly (from his home computer, of course).

    And it need not be Frenkel who does the research and disseminating. Cisco (or any other company) would have to be an idi0t to simply sit on facts that were unfavorable to their competitors or enemies. It’s a well-known and widely practiced form of advertising called “negative adversiting.”

    As the Professor pointed out upthread, this case is ridiculous.

  99. i think that everyone is overlooking the significance of defamation, especially when an attorney is the plaintiff. all that we have is our reputation. i’m not saying that i believe that the plaintiff in this case has a winning argument, and if i were in the jury box (based only on what i know about the facts), my vote would be for no liability due to privilige that was not destroyed by common law malice. it’s a shame we lost a good blog, but let the trial run its course before letting it upset you. things will either resolve correctly, or i’ll be the first attorney to file an amicus brief on appeal.

  100. “brotato”

    I loled.

    “Zoinks! It looks like Velma solved the mystery, Scoob!”

    Hang on just a minute there Shaggy, cisco was also rushing to file and likely filed at 1201 on the proper day.

    “The Cisco Kid’s personal views are irrelevant!”

    I see, so then someone who disagrees with you has their personal views deemed “irrelevant”? For a self proclaimed patriot/American you certainly hold some un-American and unpatriotic views JAOI.

    Besides that, I doubt it if you’d like me to share who JAOI is to PTT. Perhaps then we’d see a warrented defamation suit?

  101. There were some real losses in valuable information when the “troll tracker” blog got shut down. Such as figuring out and exposing the real parties [including lawyer-owners in some cases] behind shell or serial-shell troll corporations assigned or re-assigned patents being sued on. Fortunately Joe Mullin’s “Prior Art” blog has taken up a part of that useful information detection and publication.

  102. The lobster harvest this year is abundant and inexpensive.

    Of to a grilled 3 pounder at a bargain price — bye-bye 4 now.

  103. Dear Prosecutor,

    Re: “brotato”: Maybe used to, but no more for a couple decades (but I never inhaled (heha)).

    The opinions opined by the Cisco Kid were in fact condoned by a plurality of Cisco Officials — moreover all responsibility for the blasphemous PTT has been accepted legally by Cisco!

    The Cisco Kid’s personal views are irrelevant! He was paid by Cisco, and he carried out Cisco’s agenda — what more need be said be said?

    And when Cisco officials went to Washington saying PTT was an independent opinion, that was bs, fraud, with a capital “F”. Again, the Cisco kid’s personal views are/were irrelevant.

  104. ” my guess is that the early bird gets the worm; Mr. Albritton et al. burned the midnight oil, while “fat cat ” Cisco and its seedy henchmen were not up to the task!”

    Zoinks! It looks like Velma solved the mystery, Scoob!

  105. JAOI,

    Why is it fraud? Because you assume the opinions he posted to be sanctioned by Cisco? While eliminating “trolls” would certainly help Cisco, do you think it impossible that the guy may personally have held these views?

    What if Joe the plumber were to have created the troll tracker blog? Would that be fraud?

    You get a little carried away when it comes to the troll tracker blog, brotato.

  106. Re: “Albritton apparently does not dispute the fact that the original docket sheet indicated October 15 or that his office convinced the clerk to change the date stamp. However, he explains that the change was proper because the electronic filing had been started prior to midnight, but was not finally submitted until after midnight.”

    I.e., my guess is that the early bird gets the worm; Mr. Albritton et al. burned the midnight oil, while “fat cat ” Cisco and its seedy henchmen were not up to the task!

  107. Seeing Eric’s smiling visage up there reminds me of the old days when there was a photo of DC in the margins.

  108. Dear Prof. Crouch,

    Re: “On the 16th of October, Cisco filed a declaratory judgment complaint against
    ESN in Connecticut. If Albritton had re-filed, he would have lost the ‘first filer’ status in the venue fight.”

    What was the time-of-day-stamp on Cisco’s filing?

  109. “In my educated opinion, what Cisco and its henchmen perpetrated on the American public is/was just plain fraud (with a capital “F”).”

    Anonymously collecting and disseminating undisputed facts and pungent (but reasonable) opinions about patent trolls and their courtroom behavior is a fraud?

    Wow, you must be truly beside yourself when you consider how the health care industry has behaved lately. Thankfully, they have manufactured lots of drugs for you to take to help you simmer down(TM).

  110. “No sarcasm intended here, just an honest (and possibly foolish) question. Why didn’t Albritton simply file a motion to dismiss without prejudice (presumably a few days later) and re-file the suit to cure the problem? Wouldn’t the court be very likely to grant such a motion? I don’t see how the defendant would have been prejudiced by it. How much would it have cost him (i.e., Albritton)? A few hundred dollars at most?”

    They were racing Cisco to the court room to file. Apparently Cisco was trying to get the case tried in Delaware or somewhere besides ED Tex. You can read about it in the article I posted last night, which might be reproduced on this very thread.

  111. Dear Free Speech, Baby,

    In my educated opinion, what Cisco and its henchmen perpetrated on the American public is/was just plain fraud (with a capital “F”).

    Please, pull your head out and smell the coffee.™

  112. “How much would it have cost him (i.e., Albritton)? A few hundred dollars at most?”

    Are you implying that Eric Albritton is cheap?!?!?!??!!??!?!?!?!

  113. On the 16th of October, Cisco filed a declaratory judgment complaint against
    ESN in Connecticut. If Albritton had re-filed, he would have lost the
    ‘first filer’ status in the venue fight.

  114. No sarcasm intended here, just an honest (and possibly foolish) question. Why didn’t Albritton simply file a motion to dismiss without prejudice (presumably a few days later) and re-file the suit to cure the problem? Wouldn’t the court be very likely to grant such a motion? I don’t see how the defendant would have been prejudiced by it. How much would it have cost him (i.e., Albritton)? A few hundred dollars at most?

  115. “FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF that.”

    On the other hand, perhaps due in part to this case and the attention it brought to the issue, PTT’s mission is being accomplished with the help of the Federal Circuit which has made transferring out of the alleged Banana Republic a lot easier. Perhaps at some point the lawyers and judges down there can amuse themselves by sueing each other. All in the family! Sort of a Southern tradition, no?

    I thought this bit was very interesting:

    “Do you know why Ms. Yen was interested in sending this blog [post] to somebody in governmental affairs?” asked Patton. “Do you think it might have had something to do with patent reform?”

    Frenkel responded: “I have no idea.”

    “[At that point, Judge Richard Schell excused the jury from the courtroom. Lawyers for the defendants told Schell they wanted to bring in evidence of Eric Albritton's own meetings with Congressional representatives on the issue of venue reform if his lawyers insisted on raising the issue of Cisco's lobbying. Schell told both parties to avoid the issue of lobbying altogether and brought the jury back in.]”

    Well played by the defense. I’d love to see transcripts from those Albritton meetings, btw.

  116. Apparently even the clerks in the E.D. of Texas, have oversized egos and need to have their sensitive feelings soothed whenever they are criticized.

    link to thepriorart.typepad.com

    “Do you have any shame whatsoever about these two posts?” Patton asked.

    “I do have some shame about the original post,” Frenkel answered. “I was a little bit rash when I wrote the final paragraph of the first post [containing the "Banana Republic" phrase]. And I apologized for it. I apologized in deposition and open trial.”

    Patton: “Did you apologize to the people in Chicago, and San Diego, and Miami, who might have read this?”

    Frenkel: “No, I did not.”

    Patton: “Did you ever apologize to Eric Albritton?”

    Frenkel: “No.”

    Patton: “You ever apologize to Johnny Ward?”

    Frenkel: “No.”

    Patton: “You ever apologize to the court clerks?”

    Frenkel: “No.”

    Patton: “You don’t think you owe anybody an apology for this?”

    Frenkel: “No one’s ever asked me for one.”

  117. In my educated opinion, Cisco and its henchmen should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

  118. “Frenkel has indicated that he will not revive his troll tracker blog.”

    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
    that.

    Of course, it’s a big deal to make a blog like he was running, and adding this kind of nonsense to the already daunting task would be a deal breaker for me too.

  119. “Albritton apparently does not dispute the fact that the original docket sheet indicated October 15 or that his office convinced the clerk to change the date stamp. However, he explains that the change was proper because the electronic filing had been started prior to midnight, but was not finally submitted until after midnight.”

    In my humble Constitutionally protected opinion, I believe that whether a change was proper is for the court to decide, following the filing of a motion to change the date.

Comments are closed.