Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABA Journal)   You're an attorney that just won a $25 million judgement for your client. Do you celebrate by: A) Buying a yacht, B) going to Disney World, C) Ratting out your scumbag client who just admitted all his testimony and evidence were lies and forgeries   (abajournal.com) divider line 48
    More: Hero, Akin Gump  
•       •       •

5732 clicks; posted to Business » on 27 May 2014 at 11:59 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-27 10:21:28 AM  
themovielists.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-05-27 10:58:46 AM  
Lawyer jokes aside, wouldn't that be a serious ethics breach?
 
2014-05-27 12:03:39 PM  

SilentStrider: Lawyer jokes aside, wouldn't that be a serious ethics breach?


I was wondering the same thing.  Isn't that the road to getting disbarred?
 
2014-05-27 12:04:50 PM  

SilentStrider: Lawyer jokes aside, wouldn't that be a serious ethics breach?



Depends on the state.  Rules of Professional Responsibility often forbids lawyers from knowingly perpetrating a fraud upon the court, presenting falsified evidence, or allowing false testimony to be presented.  Such rules can (and in the case of this state does) allow an attorney to disclose details to the Court (and/or law enforcement if applicable).
 
2014-05-27 12:11:37 PM  
The relevant rule here is Rule 1.05

(c) A lawyer may reveal confidential information:

(1) When the lawyer has been expressly authorized to do so in order to carry out the representation.

(2) When the client consents after consultation.

(3) To the client, the client's representatives, or the members, associates, and employees of the lawyer's firm, except when otherwise instructed by the client.

(4) When the lawyer has reason to believe it is necessary to do so in order to comply with a court order, a Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law.

(5) To the extent reasonably necessary to enforce a claim or establish a defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client.

(6) To establish a defense to a criminal charge, civil claim or disciplinary complaint against the lawyer or the lawyer's associates based upon conduct involving the client or the representation of the client.

(7) When the lawyer has reason to believe it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act.

(8) To the extent revelation reasonably appears necessary to rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services had been used.
 
2014-05-27 12:32:45 PM  
If their client told them they had intentionally and knowingly lied and allowed false documents to be provided to the Court, then YES the lawyer has the right and the obligation to make it known.

Usually they would have to tell the client that the disclosure must be made and encourage them to do it themselves and willingly, but if the client objects and refuses to fess up, then the lawyer would have to make some form of "noisy exit" and ask the court for permission to withdraw representation and explain why.

They'll get their hourly fees paid no matter what, and the extra payout from the settlement will never be worth what the damage to the firm would be if the lies became known.
 
2014-05-27 12:40:31 PM  

SilentStrider: Lawyer jokes aside, wouldn't that be a serious ethics breach?


if you read page 5 of their motion, it spells out why the Texas rules of professional conduct REQUIRE that they disclose the information.  This is refreshing as most states require you withdraw with a very loud wink that lets everyone know why you are doing it without actually saying why you are doing it.  Texas has done away with this silly dance, and allows attorneys to do the right thing without having to worry about being disbarred because you have a client who put you in an impossible situation.
 
2014-05-27 12:41:10 PM  

JK47: SilentStrider: Lawyer jokes aside, wouldn't that be a serious ethics breach?


Depends on the state.  Rules of Professional Responsibility often forbids lawyers from knowingly perpetrating a fraud upon the court, presenting falsified evidence, or allowing false testimony to be presented.  Such rules can (and in the case of this state does) allow an attorney to disclose details to the Court (and/or law enforcement if applicable).


Read the article comments (actually not bad in this article :0  ).

They're required by law to do this.

Short of it is:
If you suspect your client is going to lie, you can withdraw from the case and not tell anyone.
If you know your client DID commit a fraud upon the court, then you're required to inform the court.

You can still argue points of law, attack evidence, even if you know your client DID in fact rape and murder that bus load of nuns.  You can NOT, however, let him take the stand and say he didn't do it if he did, in fact, tell you he did it.
 
2014-05-27 12:43:04 PM  

dietbubba: SilentStrider: Lawyer jokes aside, wouldn't that be a serious ethics breach?

I was wondering the same thing.  Isn't that the road to getting disbarred?


the supreme court of your state governs your bar license.  and your license is more important than any singular client.  if that makes sense.

more on point, there are ethics rules that you shall not knowingly allow or perpetuate a fraud on the court, you have a duty to report frauds to the court.  so, you follow the rules set forth by the court, for fear that you wasted your whole life (lost your license).
 
2014-05-27 01:00:40 PM  

JK47: The relevant rule here is Rule 1.05

(c) A lawyer may reveal confidential information:

(1) When the lawyer has been expressly authorized to do so in order to carry out the representation.

(2) When the client consents after consultation.

(3) To the client, the client's representatives, or the members, associates, and employees of the lawyer's firm, except when otherwise instructed by the client.

(4) When the lawyer has reason to believe it is necessary to do so in order to comply with a court order, a Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law.

(5) To the extent reasonably necessary to enforce a claim or establish a defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client.

(6) To establish a defense to a criminal charge, civil claim or disciplinary complaint against the lawyer or the lawyer's associates based upon conduct involving the client or the representation of the client.

(7) When the lawyer has reason to believe it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act.

(8) To the extent revelation reasonably appears necessary to rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services had been used.


I think this assumes knowledge of wrongdoing on the lawyers' part- if I read the article correctly they may have been deceived by their client and are now attempting damage control and to maintain the good standing of their ability to legally talk law.
 
2014-05-27 01:12:53 PM  
But, do they know anything about bird law?
 
2014-05-27 01:13:49 PM  
Better Call Saul!
 
2014-05-27 01:14:35 PM  
Well, that's a really bad rule. Remind me to never do business in Texas (if simply being Texas wasn't a good enough reason to begin with).
 
2014-05-27 01:21:06 PM  

SilentStrider: Lawyer jokes aside, wouldn't that be a serious ethics breach?


No that's a lawyer LIVING UP to the code of legal ethics.  A lawyer is an Officer of the Court and has a legal duty to prevent a Fraud upon the Court.  If  the lawyers discovered that testimony the present at trial was perjured; this is their  ethical duty. Failure to do so, if it were later discovered could lead to disbarment.   And a firm like Akin Gump won't miss a $25 mil judgement, trust me.
 
2014-05-27 01:26:09 PM  

worlddan: Well, that's a really bad rule. Remind me to never do business in Texas (if simply being Texas wasn't a good enough reason to begin with).


You aren't allowed to lie to the court. Lawyers are, to an extent, an agent representing the court. They have a duty to not lie to the court - or KNOWINGLY present false evidence. Up to and including false testimony.

That's pretty much the rule in every state. And the federal system.
 
2014-05-27 01:30:34 PM  

Dick Gozinya: But, do they know anything about bird law?


Everybody's heard about the bird.
 
2014-05-27 02:00:04 PM  

JK47: The relevant rule here is Rule 1.05

(c) A lawyer may reveal confidential information:

(1) When the lawyer has been expressly authorized to do so in order to carry out the representation.

(2) When the client consents after consultation.

(3) To the client, the client's representatives, or the members, associates, and employees of the lawyer's firm, except when otherwise instructed by the client.

(4) When the lawyer has reason to believe it is necessary to do so in order to comply with a court order, a Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct, or other law.

(5) To the extent reasonably necessary to enforce a claim or establish a defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client.

(6) To establish a defense to a criminal charge, civil claim or disciplinary complaint against the lawyer or the lawyer's associates based upon conduct involving the client or the representation of the client.

(7) When the lawyer has reason to believe it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the client from committing a criminal or fraudulent act.

(8) To the extent revelation reasonably appears necessary to rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services had been used.


Key point... This is a "the lawyer MAY" not a "the lawyer MUST".  Good for them for still choosing to do the right thing when they had an option.
 
2014-05-27 02:00:40 PM  

Dick Gozinya: But, do they know anything about bird law?


shirtoid.com
 
2014-05-27 02:00:57 PM  
Although they probably decided that the publicity boost is more important than winning this particular case.  And it also sounds like they were representing a patent troll.
 
2014-05-27 02:08:28 PM  

plcow: Although they probably decided that the publicity boost is more important than winning this particular case.  And it also sounds like they were representing a patent troll.


Doubt publicity came into it.  More that the lies were pretty blatant and going to be discovered anyways, so if they'd kept their mouths shut a judge might accuse them of knowing about it beforehand.
 
2014-05-27 02:19:17 PM  

plcow: And it also sounds like they were representing a patent troll.


You're guessing that based on the name of the company and not anything else, right?
 
2014-05-27 02:21:32 PM  
Isn't that a clear-cut violation of the client-attorney confidentiality? Dumbass lawyer should be fined AND disbarred because of that. If you cannot speak in trust to your own lawyer, then the whole legal system cannot function.
 
2014-05-27 02:23:03 PM  

Cataholic: SilentStrider: Lawyer jokes aside, wouldn't that be a serious ethics breach?

if you read page 5 of their motion, it spells out why the Texas


Oh, Texas. That explains EVERYTHING! Justice does not exist in Texas.
 
2014-05-27 02:25:59 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Isn't that a clear-cut violation of the client-attorney confidentiality? Dumbass lawyer should be fined AND disbarred because of that. If you cannot speak in trust to your own lawyer, then the whole legal system cannot function.


RTFA, RTFT.

There's a chance an attorney could be disbarred for NOT letting the court know about the straight up perjury his client used his services to commit.

You can trust your lawyer. But you can't force your lawyer to help you commit fraud against the court that have him his license in the first place.
 
2014-05-27 02:30:58 PM  
img.fark.netshould've called Stormy Weathers.
 
2014-05-27 02:41:40 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Isn't that a clear-cut violation of the client-attorney confidentiality? Dumbass lawyer should be fined AND disbarred because of that. If you cannot speak in trust to your own lawyer, then the whole legal system cannot function.


You must have gotten your GED in law from watching Law and Order Reruns.
 
2014-05-27 02:42:45 PM  

dragyne: TV's Vinnie: Isn't that a clear-cut violation of the client-attorney confidentiality? Dumbass lawyer should be fined AND disbarred because of that. If you cannot speak in trust to your own lawyer, then the whole legal system cannot function.

You must have gotten your GED in law from watching Law and Order Reruns.


Scroll downa  bit further when I find out that this happened in Texas and everything became clear, Zippy.
 
2014-05-27 02:42:45 PM  
The other, relevant rule, Texas Disciplinary Rules of Conduct 3.03 Candor to the Tribunal:

(b) If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall
make a good faith effort to persuade the client to authorize the lawyer to correct or withdraw
the false evidence. If such efforts are unsuccessful, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial
measures, including disclosure of the true facts.
 
2014-05-27 02:43:46 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Cataholic: SilentStrider: Lawyer jokes aside, wouldn't that be a serious ethics breach?

if you read page 5 of their motion, it spells out why the Texas

Oh, Texas. That explains EVERYTHING! Justice does not exist in Texas.


You tell me you are going to break the law, I gotta tell someone, especially if you have involved me in breaking the law somehow, or  somebody is gonna end up hurt or dead thanks to your plans.  TX is no different than any state on this
 
2014-05-27 02:47:03 PM  

TV's Vinnie: dragyne: TV's Vinnie: Isn't that a clear-cut violation of the client-attorney confidentiality? Dumbass lawyer should be fined AND disbarred because of that. If you cannot speak in trust to your own lawyer, then the whole legal system cannot function.

You must have gotten your GED in law from watching Law and Order Reruns.

Scroll downa  bit further when I find out that this happened in Texas and everything became clear, Zippy.


from the model rules of professional conduct (the model rules provide an example for all the states to follow.  all states have enacted rules that are similar, many of enacted the model rules as written.  in other words, these rules are absolutely not unique to texas):

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
 
2014-05-27 02:55:16 PM  

dragyne: TV's Vinnie: Isn't that a clear-cut violation of the client-attorney confidentiality? Dumbass lawyer should be fined AND disbarred because of that. If you cannot speak in trust to your own lawyer, then the whole legal system cannot function.

You must have gotten your GED in law from watching Law and Order Reruns.


Best part is there was an L&O where the lawyer inadvertently was a party to murder and client/lawyer confidentiality went out the window when it was discovered (and the lawyer became an unintentional conspirator).
 
2014-05-27 03:43:42 PM  
dannysbyrne.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-05-27 03:45:16 PM  
Illinois will sanction lawyers for not reporting known misconduct by another lawyer.  They also allow disclosure to prevent a client from committing a crime and require disclosure if someone's going to get hurt or killed by the client.  There's also very limited attorney client privilege in certain matters (regulatory, tax, etc).  The idea that your lawyer can't tell anyone anything you say is a Hollywood fiction.
 
2014-05-27 04:01:36 PM  

IvyLady: Illinois will sanction lawyers for not reporting known misconduct by another lawyer.  They also allow disclosure to prevent a client from committing a crime and require disclosure if someone's going to get hurt or killed by the client.  There's also very limited attorney client privilege in certain matters (regulatory, tax, etc).  The idea that your lawyer can't tell anyone anything you say is a Hollywood fiction.


Although, Interestingly enough, there are limits to even that disclosure in Ill for criminal law.   In law school one of the clients of our criminal clinic was a guy we'd been fighting to get off death row for nearly two decades.   He Killed a cop at a time when that was not automatic death penalty material, so the cops framed him for a second murder to make him DP eligible.   Of course the state claimed that these allegations were fanciful even though we even knew who the "real killer" probably was.   Sure enough just before  "real killer" died (in prison form natural causes) he summoned his lawyers and authorized them to finally reveal the confession he had made to them about the crime and then show police where he had hid the murder weapon.   Given that our guy was on death row, there was a lot of discussion about what the other lawyer's ethical duties were in that case but in the end  all relevant authorities held that they were obliged to keep their client's secrets since our guy's execution was never imminent (because we were still actively appealing)  during that time.
 
2014-05-27 04:13:18 PM  
holy shiat. get my fainting couch. STAT
 
2014-05-27 04:31:31 PM  

Magorn: IvyLady: Illinois will sanction lawyers for not reporting known misconduct by another lawyer.  They also allow disclosure to prevent a client from committing a crime and require disclosure if someone's going to get hurt or killed by the client.  There's also very limited attorney client privilege in certain matters (regulatory, tax, etc).  The idea that your lawyer can't tell anyone anything you say is a Hollywood fiction.

Although, Interestingly enough, there are limits to even that disclosure in Ill for criminal law.   In law school one of the clients of our criminal clinic was a guy we'd been fighting to get off death row for nearly two decades.   He Killed a cop at a time when that was not automatic death penalty material, so the cops framed him for a second murder to make him DP eligible.   Of course the state claimed that these allegations were fanciful even though we even knew who the "real killer" probably was.   Sure enough just before  "real killer" died (in prison form natural causes) he summoned his lawyers and authorized them to finally reveal the confession he had made to them about the crime and then show police where he had hid the murder weapon.   Given that our guy was on death row, there was a lot of discussion about what the other lawyer's ethical duties were in that case but in the end  all relevant authorities held that they were obliged to keep their client's secrets since our guy's execution was never imminent (because we were still actively appealing)  during that time.


i think i missed something in your story, but there is no confidentiality requirement if the client not only authorizes but requests that you reveal client information.  if nothing else, that's a waiver of confidentiality.  especially if anyone outside of the arrangement heard the information. so, the moment a cop heard this stuff, then there is no confidentiality.
 
2014-05-27 04:50:12 PM  

Theaetetus: plcow: And it also sounds like they were representing a patent troll.

You're guessing that based on the name of the company and not anything else, right?


'Eastern District of Texas' did it for me.

These folks were worse than a patent troll. Their crap wasn't even special enough for a mentally challenged patent examiner to rubber stamp. It was a frothy mixture of unbelievable hokum and premeditated fraud.

They fabricated evidence from day one just to pursue this suit; They'd suckered another healthcare company for a small amount of money in licensing, and after they were told it sucked and didn't work? they altered the contracts to make the figures bigger to help in the damages phase, altered the amendment schedules to show their shiat had worked, and started sending faux emails to back up their faux claims even before there was any other suitor.
 
2014-05-27 04:55:52 PM  

NormallyTechnos: Theaetetus: plcow: And it also sounds like they were representing a patent troll.

You're guessing that based on the name of the company and not anything else, right?

'Eastern District of Texas' did it for me.

These folks were worse than a patent troll. Their crap wasn't even special enough for a mentally challenged patent examiner to rubber stamp. It was a frothy mixture of unbelievable hokum and premeditated fraud.

They fabricated evidence from day one just to pursue this suit; They'd suckered another healthcare company for a small amount of money in licensing, and after they were told it sucked and didn't work? they altered the contracts to make the figures bigger to help in the damages phase, altered the amendment schedules to show their shiat had worked, and started sending faux emails to back up their faux claims even before there was any other suitor.


If that's true I have a very hard time believing that the lawyers didn't know about the fraud until just now.  Maybe this is the case of the attorneys coming clean because they think they're going to get busted.
 
2014-05-27 05:03:47 PM  

Deneb81: worlddan: Well, that's a really bad rule. Remind me to never do business in Texas (if simply being Texas wasn't a good enough reason to begin with).

You aren't allowed to lie to the court.


Oh, I see. You'll need to show me that part where the court asked them a question.
 
2014-05-27 05:26:07 PM  

worlddan: Oh, I see. You'll need to show me that part where the court asked them a question.


They hadn't yet, but they were about to. First page, under Factual Background:

"On May 14, 2014, Defendants counsel served an Emergency Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11.. Setting forth certain allegations about Plaintiff."

Both parties will be called on the carpet (via back and forth motions) and have to answer questions.
 
2014-05-27 05:26:26 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Isn't that a clear-cut violation of the client-attorney confidentiality? Dumbass lawyer should be fined AND disbarred because of that. If you cannot speak in trust to your own lawyer, then the whole legal system cannot function.


If the lawyers were in on it from the start, I would agree with you, except that wasn't the case.  The client basically used the lawyers and the court to commit a crime.  The lawyers didn't know that the case they argued on behalf of the client was completely based on lies and fraud until after the trial ended.  The lawyers then did right/legal thing and reported it.  The fact that the clients admitted everything shows that they really didn't see a problem with their tactics.  I'm sure they will get a reality check when they get hit with a few thousand prejury charges.
 
2014-05-27 05:45:38 PM  

IvyLady: NormallyTechnos: Theaetetus: plcow: And it also sounds like they were representing a patent troll.

You're guessing that based on the name of the company and not anything else, right?

'Eastern District of Texas' did it for me.

These folks were worse than a patent troll. Their crap wasn't even special enough for a mentally challenged patent examiner to rubber stamp. It was a frothy mixture of unbelievable hokum and premeditated fraud.

They fabricated evidence from day one just to pursue this suit; They'd suckered another healthcare company for a small amount of money in licensing, and after they were told it sucked and didn't work? they altered the contracts to make the figures bigger to help in the damages phase, altered the amendment schedules to show their shiat had worked, and started sending faux emails to back up their faux claims even before there was any other suitor.

If that's true I have a very hard time believing that the lawyers didn't know about the fraud until just now.  Maybe this is the case of the attorneys coming clean because they think they're going to get busted.


It's not true at all. Here's the details from another article:
LBDS is a Texas developer of cardiac MRI technology.  ISOL Technology Inc. is a manufacturer of MRI systems based in South Korea.  According to a federal court complaint (LBDS Holding Company, LLC v. ISOL Technology Inc. et al., 6:11-cv-00428, (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2011)), LBDS contracted with ISOL in 2008 to purchase MRI systems with ISOL agreeing to integrate LBDS's proprietary technology into those systems. The agreement contained a non-disclosure provision and LBDS disclosed its technology to ISOL to assist with the integration project.
The relationship turned south in 2010 at a convention for the Radiological Society of North America.  LBDS's CEO attended the convention and saw a competitor's booth displaying LBDS's proprietary cardiac technology.  To make matters worse, he saw ISOL management and engineers manning the competitor's booth.
LBDS sued for breach of the non-disclosure provision, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets.  LBDS alleged that ISOL took the cardiac technology and integrated it into the competitor's system, even helping to market the new product in South Korea and, brazenly, at the trade convention. A Texas jury agreed with LBDS and awarded the company $25 million in damages.


This has nothing to do with patent trolling, or even patents in general.
 
2014-05-27 06:02:47 PM  
NormallyTechnos:

Both parties will be called on the carpet (via back and forth motions) and have to answer questions.

Yes, both parties have to answer questions honestly. The law firm is not a party to the suit. So in no way is it lying to the court.
 
2014-05-27 06:22:54 PM  
The client was bragging too loudly about it for the lawyer to have plausible deniability?
 
2014-05-27 07:46:28 PM  
This is the final twist in like half of all the Rumpole stories. Either they think they've beat the system and brazenly tell Rumpole they dunnit, or after the case Rumpole casually bumps up against them while they're holding the smoking gun.
 
2014-05-27 07:48:33 PM  

Theaetetus: IvyLady: NormallyTechnos: Theaetetus: plcow: And it also sounds like they were representing a patent troll.

You're guessing that based on the name of the company and not anything else, right?

'Eastern District of Texas' did it for me.

These folks were worse than a patent troll. Their crap wasn't even special enough for a mentally challenged patent examiner to rubber stamp. It was a frothy mixture of unbelievable hokum and premeditated fraud.

They fabricated evidence from day one just to pursue this suit; They'd suckered another healthcare company for a small amount of money in licensing, and after they were told it sucked and didn't work? they altered the contracts to make the figures bigger to help in the damages phase, altered the amendment schedules to show their shiat had worked, and started sending faux emails to back up their faux claims even before there was any other suitor.

If that's true I have a very hard time believing that the lawyers didn't know about the fraud until just now.  Maybe this is the case of the attorneys coming clean because they think they're going to get busted.

It's not true at all. Here's the details from another article:
LBDS is a Texas developer of cardiac MRI technology.  ISOL Technology Inc. is a manufacturer of MRI systems based in South Korea.  According to a federal court complaint (LBDS Holding Company, LLC v. ISOL Technology Inc. et al., 6:11-cv-00428, (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2011)), LBDS contracted with ISOL in 2008 to purchase MRI systems with ISOL agreeing to integrate LBDS's proprietary technology into those systems. The agreement contained a non-disclosure provision and LBDS disclosed its technology to ISOL to assist with the integration project.
The relationship turned south in 2010 at a convention for the Radiological Society of North America.  LBDS's CEO attended the convention and saw a competitor's booth displaying LBDS's proprietary cardiac technology.  To make matters worse, he saw ISOL management and engineers manning the competitor's booth.
LBDS sued for breach of the non-disclosure provision, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets.  LBDS alleged that ISOL took the cardiac technology and integrated it into the competitor's system, even helping to market the new product in South Korea and, brazenly, at the trade convention. A Texas jury agreed with LBDS and awarded the company $25 million in damages.

This has nothing to do with patent trolling, or even patents in general.


Do you have a source for this? Mobile Google fun is failing me.

Thanks!
 
2014-05-27 07:49:09 PM  
Fu, dammit...
 
2014-05-28 12:28:02 AM  

tollbooth_willy: Do you have a source for this?


http://www.fredlaw.com/news__media/2014/03/27/586/25_million_jury_ve rd ict_highlights_dangers_of_entrusting_third_parties_with_trade_secrets

Source... Not to endorse them or condone their apparent fraud on the court. Just saying that it's not about patents.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report