"I am sure fms has read Kurt's posts and his past career. Fms is talking to the average joe 6pack who might be intimidated, like he was. Defending yourself has a price tag. One reason so many frivolous suits are settled and not taken to court, costs less no matter how right one may be, unless he has the deep pocket, or is in Kurt's shoes, is a lawyer or has good layer friends."
Or considers themself capable, as Kurt mentioned. I myself have an extremely low tolerance level for bu**sh** and decided not to cave in to a frivolous suit flung my way. Instead, I spent an afternoon at the courthouse researching the claims made and sent my initial response, a la Kurt. In doing so I sent an implicit message: that I was not afraid of them, that I would submit properly formatted and well-reasoned responses, and that I would defend my views before a judge and accept a court's decision regarding the matter. I was diligent and forceful and proceeded with dignity, responding tit-for-tat to several inquiries, sending notarized copies for the court along the way. I knew that with each letter my antagonist was receiving a bill from his lawyers. And they were in the wrong. Eventually, the letters stopped arriving. I was informed this summer by the court that the case, having lingered for a decade, had been dropped from their books.
As Kurt said, they can't fire off a letter, slap some patents on a table, and claim "there's an infringement in here somewhere." Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can understand that, including a judge as Monster well knows. You and I could have penned a response--it wouldn't hold a candle to Kurt's eloquence and certainly would not be as comprehensive--that would have put Monster on notice that they're gonna have some 'splainin' to do if they hope to get this off the ground in an actual court of law. So many "Officers of the Court" fear ACTUAL litigation when they are in the wrong. They have to stand before the judge, too:
"It looks like when you sent this letter, you were operating on the premise that I am not smart enough to see through your deceptions or sophisticated enough to intelligently evaluate your claims; shame on you. You are required, as a matter of legal ethics, to display good faith and professional candor in your dealings with adverse parties, and you have fallen miserably short of your ethical responsibilities."
As far as this case goes, that's the bottom line. Attaboy, Kurt! God help them if this ever does get in front of a judge, but if it does I want to be there!
