@tobi @stux from a legal perspective, the traditional...

@tobi @stux from a legal perspective, the traditional response is "we refer you to Arkell v Pressdram, 1971" -which then requires any unfamiliar with that precedent to look it up before discovering the response is "fuck off"

https://proftomcrick.com/2014/04/29/arkell-v-pressdram-1971/

Like 14 December at 21:50 | Wall-to-wall | Open on hachyderm.io

9 comments

Trebach

@stevel @tobi @stux Another good one is a letter from Cleveland Stadium Corp to Dale O. Cox replying to a legal threat made from fans throwing paper planes in the stadium:

CLEVELAND STADIUM, CORP
CLEVELAND STADIUM - CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114
Phone 781-5600

November 21, 1974

Dale O. Cox, Esquire
Roetzel and Andress
20th Floor
One Cascade Plaza
Akron, Ohio 44308

Dear Mr. Cox:
Attached is a letter that we received on November 19, 1974. I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.

Very truly yours,

CLEVELAND STADIUM CORP.

James N. Bailey,
General Counsel

JNB:bjn

cc: Arthur B. Modell

14 December at 23:52 | Open on functional.cafe

chx

@trebach @stevel @tobi @stux another good one, albeit longer is Kurt Denke's reply when Monster came knocking on the door of his audio cable company. First he tears them a new one on technical matters then comes *this*

"Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it."

15 December at 0:36 | Open on chx.contact

zeruch

@chx Denke's letter I kept up in my office for years as a kind of reminder of "personal principles" and for it's reminder of the joys of collateral estoppel (as a kind of follow on joy to benefits of taking things to the discovery phase). Bullies deserve drubbing. With brutality and malice on a scale to instill nothing but an event horizon of deterrent fear.

15 December at 1:33 | Open on mastodon.social

William Canna-bass

@chx @trebach @stevel @tobi @stux
I had to look up Collateral Estoppel, so.
#TIL about Non-Mutual-Defensive #CollateralEstoppel where by "a defendant attempts to prevent a plaintiff from re-litigating an issue that was previously decided against the plaintiff in another lawsuit against a different party."

To put it another way, if Mr. Denke's defense was successful, and ruled on in his case, then Monster Cable couldn't attempt to use that failed issue against a different cable manufacturer when Monster Cable sued them for alleged Patent and Trade dress infringement.

(#Source
https://legaldictionary.net/collateral-estoppel/
)

Expand text...

15 December at 4:00 | Open on kolektiva.social

William Canna-bass

@chx @trebach @stevel @tobi @stux

I did some digging and apparently Monster Cable sent a Cease & Desist for infringing on "Design Patents" so I looked one of the claimed ones up.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/72/50/df/98f61250b428b5/USD456363.pdf
It is just a drawing, not a unique idea.

"Design patents represent nothing more that that: design. There is no technological content within design patents. The net effect is that Monster cable suing Blue Jeans is like you suing someone who copied the custom paint job on your car."

#Source
https://www.audioholics.com/news/monster-sues-blue-jeans-cable

@chx @trebach @stevel @tobi @stux

Expand text...

15 December at 4:08 | Open on kolektiva.social