Mike, I'm sorry to hear this has been so distracting to you and the other TD staffers.
I wonder if you're handling it right.
I know it's easy to be cool and relaxed when it's not my own business and investment at stake, but I think it's a mistake, on multiple levels, to respond with lots of time, attention, and legal expense.
The point is that Ayyadurai has no case. He clearly didn't invent email; that's trivial to prove in court. He's clearly attacking you solely for pointing out that the emperor is naked.
There are other legal arguments, but given these facts I think they're irrelevant.
I hear lots of TD commenters claiming that people have no choice but to fold in the face of baseless legal intimidation, because of the cost of defense.
By making a huge deal out of this, raising lots of money (I bought 2 shirts and a mug), and admitting to your own distraction, you are reinforcing that meme.
Which I think is plain wrong. Our court system isn't that bad. It does care for simple justice and the plain letter of the law.
Instead of responding with all-hands-on-deck, red alert, and a 30 page filing, how about having your lawyer spend 4 hours drafting a 2 page reply:
Ayyadurai didn't invent email. See these references.
This is a baseless attack meant to silence his critics
We want legal fees and damages for this baseless case
Then shut up. Let the courts do their work.
Even if you lose (unlikely), you can always appeal.
If the trademark is a gift of the Chinese government, then he can't accept it.
If the trademark is his (intellectual) property by right under Chinese law (in this case because he was first-to-file), then it's allowed.
Which of the two cases apply may be difficult to say, which is one of the (many) reasons why Presidents have mostly divested themselves of personal business while in office.
Given Mr. Trump's very personal feelings about his business (after all, most of it seems to involve pasting giant letters T R U M P on every possible surface), this was always going to be a problem. But we knew that going in.
Thank you, Wendy, for once again showing that civil discourse is possible between people of differing viewpoints.
Actually I agree with everything you say here - Mike's post is entirely reasonable, and what is going on with the USPTO (and many other things) is indeed worrying.
My original comment was directed at the AC who snarked that the answer is "Guess the highest bidder hasn't stepped forth yet." (Certainly not at Mike, for whom I have great respect.)
My position is pretty clear from my other comments in this thread. I'm no fan or supporter of Mr. Trump.
It pains me greatly to find myself in the position of defending him against unreasonable accusations. There are plenty of reasonable accusations to attack him with - not least his positions on IP law, civil forfeiture, trade, immigration, civil rights, and authoritarianism in general.
Allowing our "collective heads to explode" is not a strategy. And we need strategy.
Actually, Roger, my "civil war" comment was in reply to the AC who enjoys watching "leftist heads exploding" (that post is now flagged, rightly so).
So if I was accusing anybody of trying to start a civil war, I was accusing Trump's defenders.
Please read the thread with a bit more care before making accusations.
Of course, it takes two to tango, so in that sense my comment does apply to both sides.
And, yes, I've got other things going on in my life beside politics and don't watch every news video. I spend way too much time posting here as it is.
Just in this thread you've talked about my "head exploding", accused me of demanding "unspoiled unconditional love for Trump", of equating "criticizing Trump with trying to start a civil war", and of spouting "imbecilic Trump wingnuttery".
Yet, also in this thread, I made clear I oppose Trump, oppose civil forfeiture, and fear "discrediting all opposition to Trump".
Elsewhere on TD (and you and I have both been here for a while) I've said I oppose Trump on immigration, trade, IP policy, and more, and that I prefered Hillary Clinton (who I despise) to Trump.
And I haven't called you any names, or insulted you.
So it seems to me that it's you who are demanding unspoiled unconditional hate for Trump, and smearing and insulting those who take an even slightly less extreme position. [See, I do know how to use markdown.]
We are all going to have to live together in this country under President Trump (ugh; pains me to say that title) for the next four, and maybe eight, years. Half the electorate voted for him (not including me).
If everyone who expresses anything other than unspoiled unconditional hate for the POTUS is an "imbecilic wingnut" then so are fully half of your fellow citizens.
I think it would be better for all of us if passions cooled a bit and we stopped calling each other names. Your opponents may indeed be wrong, but that does not make them monsters.
With that, I'll move on to other threads and topics. Have a good day, Roger.
That has costs. But it also has benefits, the largest of which is that those who sell contaminated food, water or medications, or who pollute the air, can confidently expect to be sued for it. And to lose big.
It's not a winning business strategy - regulations or no.