I wasn't thinking about directly sending Uniloc, its officers or its investors feedback.
After reading the article, I immediately thought of how I would feel and what I would do. I have had some experience with having a "diamond" that I had spent years figuratively cutting and polishing suddenly smashed to bits. But, my metaphorical diamond is not of the same scale as the original author's corporation. I didn't see it coming and it only amounted to a loss of a few thousand dollars. If I knew months or years beforehand that someone was building a case for some wild claims about my supposed mega-diamond that were false (e.g., the original diamond was theirs and was stolen even though I personally mined the rough diamond with valid mineral rights), but that those claims were going to be presented in a courtroom where I was at a significant disadvantage, I would want to explore plans of defense that were reasonably complete.
Given my inexperience in these matters, I also would really appreciate and perhaps greatly benefit from help. It could even be help in a form that might first appear meaningless without perspective that was later provided by future developments or other information.
Would I fantasize that some heavy hitters in the media would investigate and perhaps assist with informing the public of my plight and the plight of others who are increasingly victimized by these tricky diamond thieves or patent trolls? Sure. Should someone from the media want to start investigating exactly what is happening in this case, it would be nice if one of the first hits they see is this Hacker News thread. The opinions and details contained herein--the who, what, how, why, where, etc--might be quite helpful if someone digs up a small nugget that leads to something bigger. There may be (or there may not be) several obvious items that are just under the surface of this matter that just need some bits to come to light before the dots can be connected.
It's possible that we are unaware of some real eye-opening items relating to this matter that someone just needs to dig a bit to find within the mountain of publically available information. Has Uniloc intentionally targetted a very specific corporate demographic? Has Uniloc already successfully settled with thousands or tens of thousands of small companies already with just some persistent and carefully-worded threats?
Then, there's the matter I originally bought up. Should the individuals behind this be subject to public scrutiny that would normally only be expected for people like senatorial, mayoral or presidential political candidates? If this were my diamond that was going to be taken from me and I had time to do something, I think I would agree with this level of scrutiny. Would I want to let the perpetrators of these legal maneuvers grow in their direct and indirect dealings that appeared to be directly harming me? No. I don't think it's wrong to look at publically available information if there may be some aspect of that public information that might be helpful. Why not know every single thing that is possible to know? If this were happening to me, I would feel remiss if I did not pursue perfectly legal and reasonable avenues of investigation.
In addition, the information gathered and communicated during investigation can be used by others. There are so many obvious ways in which those involved can be discouraged from doing these things. I'm talking about using gathered information in the most obvious ways such as:
* Abstaining from the purchase of products or services from:
- those bringing lawsuits
- other organizations which are owned by the principals and/or investors (e.g., a restaurant owned jointly officer X and spouse)
- other organizations which funded/are funding and/or assisting them
Before any of this can be done, some basic investigation has to be done... search, identify and communicate any and all public information which might be of use to reporters, the writer of the original article or other HN users which are trying to help.
After reading the article, I immediately thought of how I would feel and what I would do. I have had some experience with having a "diamond" that I had spent years figuratively cutting and polishing suddenly smashed to bits. But, my metaphorical diamond is not of the same scale as the original author's corporation. I didn't see it coming and it only amounted to a loss of a few thousand dollars. If I knew months or years beforehand that someone was building a case for some wild claims about my supposed mega-diamond that were false (e.g., the original diamond was theirs and was stolen even though I personally mined the rough diamond with valid mineral rights), but that those claims were going to be presented in a courtroom where I was at a significant disadvantage, I would want to explore plans of defense that were reasonably complete.
Given my inexperience in these matters, I also would really appreciate and perhaps greatly benefit from help. It could even be help in a form that might first appear meaningless without perspective that was later provided by future developments or other information.
Would I fantasize that some heavy hitters in the media would investigate and perhaps assist with informing the public of my plight and the plight of others who are increasingly victimized by these tricky diamond thieves or patent trolls? Sure. Should someone from the media want to start investigating exactly what is happening in this case, it would be nice if one of the first hits they see is this Hacker News thread. The opinions and details contained herein--the who, what, how, why, where, etc--might be quite helpful if someone digs up a small nugget that leads to something bigger. There may be (or there may not be) several obvious items that are just under the surface of this matter that just need some bits to come to light before the dots can be connected.
It's possible that we are unaware of some real eye-opening items relating to this matter that someone just needs to dig a bit to find within the mountain of publically available information. Has Uniloc intentionally targetted a very specific corporate demographic? Has Uniloc already successfully settled with thousands or tens of thousands of small companies already with just some persistent and carefully-worded threats?
Then, there's the matter I originally bought up. Should the individuals behind this be subject to public scrutiny that would normally only be expected for people like senatorial, mayoral or presidential political candidates? If this were my diamond that was going to be taken from me and I had time to do something, I think I would agree with this level of scrutiny. Would I want to let the perpetrators of these legal maneuvers grow in their direct and indirect dealings that appeared to be directly harming me? No. I don't think it's wrong to look at publically available information if there may be some aspect of that public information that might be helpful. Why not know every single thing that is possible to know? If this were happening to me, I would feel remiss if I did not pursue perfectly legal and reasonable avenues of investigation.
In addition, the information gathered and communicated during investigation can be used by others. There are so many obvious ways in which those involved can be discouraged from doing these things. I'm talking about using gathered information in the most obvious ways such as:
* Abstaining from the purchase of products or services from:
- those bringing lawsuits
- other organizations which are owned by the principals and/or investors (e.g., a restaurant owned jointly officer X and spouse)
- other organizations which funded/are funding and/or assisting them
Before any of this can be done, some basic investigation has to be done... search, identify and communicate any and all public information which might be of use to reporters, the writer of the original article or other HN users which are trying to help.