" I just find it amusing that Bonta and his merry band of AGs think they can predict the movie industry over the long term."

Any such predictions wouldn't come from the attorneys in the case -- they come from either defendant admissions or from expert witness testimony. While it is far too early for expert affidavits to be filed (gotta wait at least until a motion to dismiss is filed by the defense), you can see this already at play in the complaint.

For example, If you look at the complaint (particularly IV.B, para 51 et seq), it lays out the anticipated blockbuster terminology, ties it to industry use (so what Paramount et al describe themselves as anticipated blockbusters), discusses how the 27% and 30% were arrived at (using figures from the past four years), and so forth.

It isn't "Bonta and his merry band of AGs" that came up with these numbers from thin air -- the complaint states these are numbers based on industry data (including communications made by the defendants to their investors).

I'd also expect these numbers to be supported by both consulting and testifying expert witnesses (particularly as to market share and market definitions). Antitrust cases usually involve complex expert witness battles over market share calculations -- I would expect this one to do the same. This isn't a type of case where an attorney would prepare their case -- or even their initial complaint -- without consulting experts in the relevant fields.

Anyone know who the lawyers / firms are that are defending them in this action?

"Sorry, but being paid doesn't absolve lawyers of any ethical responsibility ... Lawyers love to claim this but it's simply not true."

In general, the lawyer's ethical responsibility is to represent his/her client. There are a host of other ethical requirements which, if violated, can lead to an attorney being disbarred. I'm not aware of any lawyer who would claim that being paid absolves them of their ethical obligations--which, by the way, include avoiding frivolous filings. Unfortunately, what constitutes "frivolous" is, when looked at honestly and objectively, a tough question particularly since our court systems err on the side of greater access. Compounding the analysis is that what one person thinks is frivolous another may think is a weak, but possible, argument. Making it even more annoying is that the actual strength of a case may be difficult to assess before the case is filed (since frequently a lot of evidence is in the other party's hands and won't be turned over for you to review until discover is well underway).

Patent litigation is particularly problematic, since the language in a patent is almost always very broad and imprecise. The first time the terms actually can be narrowed by the court into something firm is at the Markman hearing--which happens well into the litigation (and after serious expenses have been incurred).

"Just because a client sets a direction doesn't mean the attorneys aren't actually doing it."

True, and if the attorney files something that is frivolous there are two avenues for discipline--registering a complaint with the state's Bar Association and for the other party to file a Rule 11 sanction motion. Unfortunately, State Bars have a tendency to only severely punish when a violation is incredibly obvious... and many courts (particularly the E.D.Tx.) seem very disinclined to grant a Rule 11 motion against either the attorney or the client, especially when the case is a complex one that involves a lot of moving pieces (such as patent litigation).

"And without the attorney wanting to bring the case in the first place, there wouldn't even be any litigation."

First, the client decides whether a case is filed or not--not the attorney. Its one of the powers explicitly reserved for the client alone. The attorney can give advice on whether to file or not, and can refuse to represent the client, but that's about it.

Second, the client doesn't even need an attorney to file suit--they can file on their own (known as filing "pro se"). So, to be fair, without attorneys taking these cases, you'd likely still have businesspeople filing suit so long as the economic incentive is there.

You must live in a parallel universe where there is a scarcity of patent trolls that use vague and obvious patents that should never have been granted to exact a toll from small start-ups who cannot bear the high cost of litigating a patent suit through trial. That is not the world I see.

I'm not sure where you're getting the 80% figure from. From the numbers I've seen, about half of our senators are former lawyers, and around a third of the house of representatives are former lawyers. As a side note, a little under half of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were lawyers. You can find that here

Also, there is no lawyer 'clan'. There are multiple different types of lawyers, all of which have varying (and frequently diametrically opposed) professional interests. For instance, most plaintiff personal injury lawyers would be vehemently opposed to policies put forward by the defense bar...

... and this ignores the fact that much of the ultimate blame for our current "political class" can be found in the individuals who vote for them and the individuals/corporations who fund their elections.

First, patent litigation frequently involves retaining experts. Both the plaintiff and the defendant will retain and expert (and sometimes even the Court retains one). That's one of the reasons patent litigation gets very expensive for defendants (which feeds in to the reason we have patent trolls (along with the pro-troll Eastern District of Texas, and the complete failure by the courts (especially the E.D.Tx.) to actually use Fed.R.Civ.Pro. Rule 11 sanctions as a deterrent). It may surprise you, but the attorneys don't testify as to whether or not something is obvious--the retained *experts* do so.

Second, if a lawyer is operating on contingency ("tak[ing] a third of the cash") it is often not in their interests to tie up the court--the longer the case takes, the longer it is until the attorney gets paid and the more expenses they rack up in the meantime. It is more profitable for a lawyer operating on a contingency-fee basis to push the case forward as quickly as possible so that they can hold down their expenses and getting their fee award as quickly as possible.

Third, many patent attorneys don't "take a third of the cash." For instance, most of the defense bar bills at an hourly rate. The plaintiffs bar sometimes operates on an hourly rate but some do operate on contingency (typically 25% for settling, 33% for a jury verdict, and 50% if it has to go through appeals). The contingency basis is probably much more common for patent trolls (whose goal is to get in, put pressure on the defendants so that it is cheaper to settle than litigate, and then get out) than for standard patent holders (who are not as adverse to trial, since their claims are usually a bit more solid).

Regardless, if you wanted to point out the actual problem, it isn't the attorneys--it's the businessmen who drive these suits (the attorneys just attempt to represent the businessmen in the best fashion possible). The businesses have found a niche they can exploit because of (a) lax patent granting by the USPTO, (b) plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions like the E.D.Tx. and (c) the high costs of litigating a patent case (due to the expert witnesses and the extremely complex nature of patent litigation (when compared to more common litigation types)). The businessmen set the goals of the litigation, oversee the settlement negotiations, and generally give the overall orders that the lawyers follow. Blaming the lawyers is like blaming the infantry for the decisions of the generals. Under most rules of ethics, the lawyers can choose the day-to-day tactics and their clients have the ultimate say on the overall goals (including when to settle and at what amount). And without the client wanting to bring the case in the first place, there wouldn't even be any litigation.

In short, if you want someone to demonize for the current state of patent litigation in this country, you'd be better off aiming your anger at the businessmen who pursue trolling as a business model.

Wow, I'm impressed that some moderator found that comment insightful, since (a) Al Gore's background is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the person in the article is a *climate scientist* or not, (b) Al Gore's background is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the the person in the article should be relied upon for an independent *scientific opinion* to be incorporated into a scientific report, (c) Al Gore has not, to my knowledge, attempted to speak *as a climate scientist* nor, to my knowledge, has he ever held himself out as *a climate scientist*, and (d) I've yet to see Al Gore attempt to introduce his own theories as to global warming derived from his own *scientific analysis*--my understanding is that he attempts to explain and distill what *scientists or the scientific literature* tell him, rather than relying on his own expertise.

So apparently the bar for 'insightful' on Slashdot these days is 'irrelevant, and comprising a logical fallacy'?

Three things counterbalance against a lawyer being 'sloppy':

(1) Malpractice: if a lawyer is 'sloppy' in his representation of a client, the client can sue the lawyer ofr malpractice, as well as make a complaint to the applicable state bar association. This can result in the lawyer paying large amounts of money to the client, reprimands being placed in the lawyer's file from the state bar, and even the lawyer having his license to practice law revoked.

(2) FRCP Rule 11 Sanctions Unbeknownst to many oustide the legal profession, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and most state rules) allow for the court to impose sanctions/award costs for frivolous filings. Extreme sloppiness sometimes falls into this category.

(3) Court's discretion In its own discretion, the Court can sanction an attorney for sloppiness or other misconduct that wastes the court's time. This can result in a case being dismissed with prejudice (meaning the attorney cannot refile the case, and will likely get pegged by the client for malpractice).