>Wait a minute. Just because a jury decides one way or another doesnt make
>the bringing of the action frivolous.
I agree. I did not mean to imply that THE CASE was frivolous - just that
anybody can sue anybody for anything. I'm saying that the onjection
"therefore you can be sued" is meaningless. For instance I could sue you
for about a half a dozen things for the mis-communication we just had. If I
had deep pockets I could have a lengthy discovery period and bring up all
sorts of issues, which you would be bound to address seriously, through
legal channels. By the time the judge got around to ruling that my case had
no merit, I might in fact bankrupt you. Even IF he gave me the bill for
your legal fees I could tie this up for many years.
Incidentally, this particular case was decided by a judge, not a jury (as
are most trademark cases, you know), and the judge in his statements seemed
to be implying that not only was the trademark issue a frivolous one, but
that TSR's assertions that Mayfair wasn't allowed to make that basic
statement were in fact without merit and in restraint of trade.
But you seem to be implying that the solution to "a big company suing a
small company over a silly reason" (my statement) is to put additonal
restrictions on the small company. I guess I just don't get it.
I'll personally never agree that the largest company in a market that is a
virtual monopoly should be given the benefit in a case like this.
Faust
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
