The SLAPP lawsuit is a suit brought by a big corporation or lobby against someone who, right or wrong, will exhaust their legal fees defending it.
While it was comforting to see ReUse and Refurbishing win one of the only UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decisions (Lexmark vs. Arizona Ink Cartridge Remanufacturers), the reality is more sobering. The very weakness of the case against ownership and reuse makes it all the more frightening that OEMs were willing to spend legal costs on APPEAL after APPEAL after APPEAL. The contributions of "friends of the court" shows that patent extension is not just about ink, it is about winning a precedent against a financially weak adversary.
The OEM's chances of winning on the basis of LAW were somewhere north of a snowball's fate in hell. But there was the hope that the small group of refurbishers could stumble, if they lack a good lawyer, succumb to bad advice, and LOSES the case, setting a new precedent.
While it was comforting to see ReUse and Refurbishing win one of the only UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decisions (Lexmark vs. Arizona Ink Cartridge Remanufacturers), the reality is more sobering. The very weakness of the case against ownership and reuse makes it all the more frightening that OEMs were willing to spend legal costs on APPEAL after APPEAL after APPEAL. The contributions of "friends of the court" shows that patent extension is not just about ink, it is about winning a precedent against a financially weak adversary.
The OEM's chances of winning on the basis of LAW were somewhere north of a snowball's fate in hell. But there was the hope that the small group of refurbishers could stumble, if they lack a good lawyer, succumb to bad advice, and LOSES the case, setting a new precedent.
"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]
The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty, of course, is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims."
