Replies to post #30911 on Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[22na22]

Thanks for sharing this article - I had never seen it. Gene Quinn does a pretty good job, although I disagree with him sometimes.

To recap:

1. Bristol v Teva

* Taranto - dissent (pro-IP)

* O'Malley - concurred with Newman (anti-IP)

2. I/P v AOL

* None of our judges

3. Soverain v Newegg

* Prost - concurred with Newman (anti-IP)

----------------------------------------

In none of these cases is Prost, O'Malley, or Taranto the writer of the opinion.

In any case, Taranto was the dissenter in a 2-1 Bristol loss.

None of these judges have been "top dogs." None of them seem to be the types who would operate sua sponte at this point.

[madprophet]

Prost was my number 3 no
Taranto was my number 3 yes.
O'Malley is balanced and reasonable with a slight nod to yes.

BUt all three follow the law and decide on merits of case.
None of them have an ax to grind,
None of them will go rogue,
and all of them will listen to the facts
rather than on pure bias.

I would suggest better than a coin toss,
but the facts still remain. Before WifI One ruling factor
75-80% of cases go through as is.
10-12% get some back
10-12% get all back.
Those are rough estimates, didn't want to go back and look up exact numbers.
Plus the time bar could happen, plus Oil States could happen.

This panel pretty much assures a trip back to district court. IMO