Well there’s literally nothing you can do about that when every party has a right to a trial. How are conflicts supposed to be resolved if one party doesn’t want to go to court?
Some other, less expensive, less corrupt tribunal mechanism? I don't think GP is saying courts are bad because they're courts, they're saying US courts happen to be bad and expensive (which is not necessary).
How would that work legally? I’m pretty sure you can’t prevent someone from having to drag them to court with a tribunal, because the party you want to compel to do something has the right to a trial. If apple patents something you think you invented and published first, and you go to the tribunal, but apple says „no, I want a court order“, what is supposed to happen? I don’t think you can just remove the right to a trial (but I’m not a lawyer, so maybe that’s possible?).
Literally what do you expect them to post? Sable is a patent troll who very famously sued Cloudflare, and recently lost. What else could they possibly mean?
What their point is. I don't know who sable is, I'm not a mind reader and searching would just require me to make an assumption as to what their point would have been.
> Sable is a patent troll who very famously sued Cloudflare, and recently lost. What else could they possibly mean?
I don't think that's what the word famous means!
All things aside, I don't think pointing to one instance of this occurring is a great argument. Mind you that the invalidity issue went to a jury which means it escaped at least 3 rounds of determination by a judge, including a JMOL. Meaning that the judge felt there was enough evidence for a jury to be able to find the patents were valid. So, again, I don't think it's the slam-dunk some people seem to think.
