Retsibsi’s Techdirt Profile


About Retsibsi

Retsibsi’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 29th, 2017 @ 4:26pm

    (untitled comment)

    The thing that intrigues me is that *someone* is making conscious decisions not to release reports, reports that were obtained at substantial (pubic) expense. Perhaps he/she/they should be named and asked to provide a (detailed) explanation why they decided to effectively throw those monies away.... and under what authority they did so?

  • Oct 2nd, 2017 @ 3:04pm

    (untitled comment)

    I actually looked up the trademark and the description of the class of trademark applies to paper materials, specifically
    "Class (016) - Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers' type; printing blocks."

    Does anyone know if that therefore applies to this case, an electronic communication?

  • Aug 8th, 2017 @ 10:28am

    (untitled comment)

    An interesting point that seems to have been missed (or rather, the applicants are keeping quiet about because they know full well what could well be coming) is that overreach on an Anton Piller Order is a serious, and I do mean *serious*, breach of professional ethics/conduct on the part of the lawyers(s) who were overseeing the execution of the Order. Anton Piller Orders normally contain such a provision that the lawyers attend to prevent such overreach occurring and if that's the case here.... Such professional misconduct can form part of a wholly separate complaint to their professional body, irrespective of the court proceedings. I've seen lawyers face being struck off for such behaviour (I'm based in the UK). If Lackman feels so minded he can raise that with the lawyers professional body as a separate issue.

  • Aug 3rd, 2017 @ 12:57pm

    (untitled comment)

    A question that no-one seems to have asked (I may have missed the answer). Just where did the drugs actually come from? I mean by that - where did the police officers *originally* acquire the drugs?

  • Jul 9th, 2017 @ 8:57am

    (untitled comment)

    Interesting little throwaway comment in one of the articles that "nobody charged him criminally until the Feds came along..." ( ). Certainly there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason for the FBI to become involved, unless perhaps someone locally wasn't doing their duty in prosecuting?

  • Jun 15th, 2017 @ 11:51am

    (untitled comment)

    You definitely have my sympathy. I was sued in the past, by a person who made utterly outrageous and very serious allegations about me professionally. The intention was not just to try and silence me but to destroy my professional reputation. They were wholly unfounded and, happily, I was able to prove they were exactly that. I was fortunate, I *am* a lawyer in civil litigation so the costs weren't a worry to me and I knew exactly what steps to take, but it made me appreciate just how stressful it must be for someone who feels they've had control of their lives taken away from them.

  • May 12th, 2017 @ 2:33pm

    (untitled comment)

    I fear this sounds to me like someone saying "please stop beating me while I take some time out to get a bigger stick"

  • May 2nd, 2017 @ 3:44pm

    (untitled comment)

    Why not allow the presumption of the validity of a patent once granted to continue BUT allow anyone to provide a challenge to that patent i.e. prior art by
    a. first providing *full* details of the ground(s) for the challenge to the patent holder, then
    b. giving them the opportunity of deciding whether or not to oppose that challenge?

    The kicker would be that if the patent holder didn't oppose the challenge the patent would be automatically invalidated. If they did oppose it then, once the issue of whether or not the patent was valid or not was determined on the basis of the challenge as originally put forward, (in other words, without allowing the challenger to add more material later once the formal challenge is made to the court / patent office) the loser would be liable to pay the other party's costs.

  • Apr 25th, 2017 @ 10:49am

    (untitled comment)

    Haven't they missed the point? They've found *exactly* the target audience they were aiming at... They couldn't have done better no matter how hard they tried. There are marketing executives weeping into their G&Ts even as they learn the news

  • Apr 1st, 2017 @ 5:27am

    (untitled comment)

    The glory of it all is that when the "document" was submitted to Google then the sender would have (presumably) had to give their contact details... I have a feeling someone's going to be clearing their diary of appointments for a while very soon.

  • Feb 22nd, 2017 @ 9:50am

    (untitled comment)

    What utter drivel. I purchased a second hand car a couple of years ago. For the first year I had nothing but problems with it and, sure enough, the car dealership failed to fix it. I finally got it fixed at another garage who quickly found the fault (which the dealership failed to locate, despite repeated claims from them that "this time we've definitely found it"), fixed it AND fixed the wireless keyfob that had mysteriously stopped working after the dealer's second attempt at repairs ("it was like that when you gave us it") for a fraction of what I'd paid the dealer. Turns out that particular dealership had a truly appalling reputation for botched repairs, but what did they care? They had a captive market so why bother to improve?

  • Jan 31st, 2017 @ 3:08pm

    Re: Re: It seems like Trump has inherited a government full of people that are willing to work against him and his Party

    You're showing your age by writing that (and I'm showing mine by knowing what you're saying)

  • Jan 3rd, 2017 @ 3:12pm

    (untitled comment)

    I suspect the real fear isn't about releasing the IP into the public domain, rather that it's being used as collateral for funding for another company / someone else. Should Faraday turn out to be a success then suddenly the Cayman company will turn round to enforce those patents against them i.e. heavy licensing fees. It's a very useful tool to manipulate profits and losses however you want to, and the suspicion seems to be that a Cayman registered company will mysteriously be the only one to end up with any profits, one way or another, while Faraday will have little to show for their work, and also be tied in to using those patents / IP.

  • Dec 23rd, 2016 @ 4:07pm

    (untitled comment)

    I work in local government and there have been times I've had to give legal advice to senior management that what they want to do is quite simply wrong and legally unfounded. Occasionally (*very* occasionally) I've had attempts to lean on me to change / modify my advice but held firm. There has never been an attempt to try and "punish" me (possibly because I'm bloody-minded and anyone who thought of trying it was warned it might not be a good idea) but just *who* is giving this woman implied approval of her action by such idiotic advice, and why aren't they stopping matters from reaching this embarrassing stage? It's not just the Attorney-General I regard as an embarrassment, it's those supposedly giving her legal advice on the issue.

  • Dec 2nd, 2016 @ 2:46pm

    (untitled comment)

    Was puzzled why Canadian viewers would complain the BBC. Turns out it's the CBC

  • Nov 18th, 2016 @ 4:37pm

    (untitled comment)

    I agree with you. I doubt he's the least bit concerned about the impact of any of his statements, other than the immediate impact. His entire business career is one of "playing to the gallery" and then walking away from whatever results. But what he seems to fail to realise is that he's not in that position any more. He doesn't get to walk away.
    (And oh how I wish I was an alien who's just landed on earth because then I could leave... Anyone got some sleeping pills? That fifty year sleep / coma sounds awfully enticing)

  • Nov 18th, 2016 @ 4:18pm

    (untitled comment)

    Anyone in public life who fails to consider their response carefully, especially when it will be open to public scrutiny and reply, has an incredibly dangerous habit. Sooner or later something will be said that will have (serious) repercussions.
    As President-elect he needs to remember that. Failure to do so will eventually result in disaster. Then he'll either be quiet or try to respond further by raising the ante. Either way it'll be too late. Mud will stick and it will be his name people will remember, even if they can't remember what was actually said and by whom.

  • Nov 14th, 2016 @ 9:54am

    (untitled comment)

    Late certainly, but not so late as to state the FCC's position and make it substantially harder for whoever is appointed as the new head to reverse it without making it clear that such a stance is wholly at odds with the public service ethos it's supposed to have...

  • Nov 11th, 2016 @ 4:23pm

    (untitled comment)

    "a removal or non-publication request"? Doesn't that mean not publishing the actor's / actress's age at all? If so I can see someone's chance of work drying up at great speed....

  • Oct 18th, 2016 @ 3:12pm

    (untitled comment)

    I wouldn't be so sure there won't be repercussions against the reputation management companies. Courts take an extremely dim view of "abuse of process". If a judge is prepared to launch an investigation into such a case then we may see a number of attorneys fleeing for cover trying to exculpate themselves from any such wrongdoing, and that may involve them co-operating with the courts to show they were innocent and had been misled by their "clients".

More comments from Retsibsi >>