Thursday, July 15, 2010

Judge Declines To Dismiss

On July 12, 2010, the Honorable US Federal Judge Charles Breyer issued an order denying our motion to dismiss the 8-count complaint that Intel Corporation has lodged against our company.

This is, obviously, unfortunate news. It cannot alter the outcome and our ultimate, inescapable triumph. But it means that more time, more funds, more grating Intel verbiage, and more taxpayer resources will be spilled down the drain before it is all over.

In the first hearing, readers recall, Breyer did indeed dismiss all charges except for the cybersquatting charge, which is the most disingenuous of the complaints, and which only survived because our lawyers had not specifically addressed it in our first motion to dismiss.

A complete reversal now of his earlier position simply means that the trial will plod forward. But there is ample room for optimism within Breyer's order.

The text of the decision essentially says: Intel Corporation, your facts are porous and nescient, but you have piled on such a mountain of them that this court find itself in the tedious position of having to give you an audience.

To wit: "In this case, there is some force to ANIP's assertion that it is using the term 'itel' in connection with its generic meaning....Thus, ANIP's use of the term of 'intel' appears to be consistent with the term's common meaning...(defining 'intel' as 'information, news'). Despite the potential strength of ANIP's argument, the Court finds that dismissing Intel's Complaint on this ground would be premature."

And later: "Arguing to the contrary, ANIP maintains, in a repeat of a previous argument, that Intel's dilution claim fails because ANIP is using the term 'intel' in its generic sense. If ANIP's assertion is true, then Intel's dilution claim, like its infringement claim, is not cognizable."

So, Judge Breyer seems to be saying that if we can prove Americas News Intel Publishing and its website are in the intelligence business, offering news analysis and information, then Intel's infringement and dilution claims are patently bogus. The intelligence business is not that arcane, and it is pretty darn easy to see that ANIP and and Mexico Watch have been for years engaged in the very specialized but very straightforward business. This test resoundingly passes the 'moron in a hurry' test. Intel Corporation is wrong.

Indeed, everyone already knows this, including Intel Corporation, but legally the common understanding of this fact has not been codified or proven, so we all most go through the motions in order to put an end to Intel Corporation's multiple frivolous campaigns in this vein.

It bears consideration that dismissing a complaint is rather extraordinary. It means that the court deems the complaint to be so obviously lacking of merit, so flimsy and unfounded, that it is not even entitled to its day in court. The fact that the complaints were dismissed in the first hearing reflects just how vapid Intel Corporation's grievance is in terms of legal relevance.

Granting a hearing to the Plaintiff is almost a pro forma nod toward their civic rights. Rant incoherently, and you are just another madman upon a soapbox in the plaza. Furbish your rants with expert legal counsel, and a public magistrate will be compelled to sit and endure them.

No comments: