Comments

One response to “Comparative Study of Post Issuance Review Options”

1. Priyanka

   February 18, 2016

   One very important point that this man did not see epzhasimed as fully in this document as he believes it warrents was the outright and severe damage done to an innocent Defendant simply by the act of filing a suit against them when the Plaintiff(s) in the suit suffer no such equivalent damage in the process. The Defendant is punished by Plaintiffs who have no regard for the money they spend in the process when courts allow this process to go forward in the mistaken belief that it will all be resolved fairly at trial. Defendants are also blackmailed into becoming unpaid investigators for the Plaintiffs whose shoddy investigative work has misidentified them in the first place. These cases exploit loopholes in the American judicial system that permit grave damage to selected Defendants with no proper recourse.And regarding downloaded files, nobody including the Defendant knows what is actually in a file until it is downloaded and played. File names tell you nothing. To claim knowing violation of copyright by (unproven) downloading of files seems wrong at best, and likely duplicitous on Plaintiff’s part.This man is left to speculate how, provided that Doe #3 wins his/her meritorious case here, the subpoena is quashed, Doe #3 is the prevailing party, and well deserved attorney’s fees are awarded, how Doe #3 will be able to anonymously cash the check. An interesting question if payment of fees would result in revealing Doe #3’s identity.This man is also sorry that other Does decided to (apparently) settle, rather than all fight together.{The Common Man Speaking}

   Reply