Funny though!
First, this. This is the one making the rounds on the WEB 2.0 (policy dictates this is always capitalised) or the Intertubes, as I believe it's called. It's a little dry and technical at the start and middle:
D323643 is the least dissimilar to the Tartan connector of any of the patents, and stands as an obstacle to any claim of infringement of the others because it establishes prior art; if its scope, like the others, is granted the breadth you argue for, then the Tartan connector falls plainly under the prior art and cannot constitute an infringement of the later, and more dissimilar, patents. Read the patents narrowly, and Monster loses; read them broadly, and Monster loses. You are welcome to point out any error in my reasoning; but I have to say that I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful in doing so.
In legal terms, that's known as a ZING!
But get through that and the man decides to go and tear them a new one:
It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind. If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish. Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.
Bahahahahhahahahah.*wipes tear* I nearly fell over my chair when I read that. Good times.
Second, more historical piece: Arkell v Pressdram, or how to say fuck off in legal proceedings properly.
If you hate Wiki for some ungodly reason:
[The plaintiff, Arkell, was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments and so sued the defendant magazine Pressdram.] The magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter in which, unusually, they said: "Our client's attitude to damages will depend on the nature of your reply". The response consisted, in part, of the following: "We would be interested to know what your client's attitude to damages would be if the nature of our reply were as follows: Fuck off".I look forward to more hilarious legal mischief.
4 comments:
Hello Rishimon!
That is all.
Amazing. My writing is so potent , so manically full of power that it inspires pastries to come to life and greet me.
Hello baked goods. Bring some of your delicious friends over.
1) My name does not refer to pasties! It is reflection of the disillusionment of the postmodern age in which we all must suffer to live
2) Don't eat my friends please
3) I don't know where your house is, so I couldn't come over even if I were a pastry and wanted to be eaten by a fatass like you, which I don't.
In conclusion, Rishi is fat.
No get back to work, you!
Ach me no spell good. I meant to say *pastries* not pasties and *now* not no. My argument, however, loses none of its awe-ful power, bitches
Post a Comment