Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Any reason?
|
It just doesn't pass the sniff test.
Why, for example, would a patent infringement suit single out one small, sole-proprietorship store (not even a chain store, mind you) for selling illegal copies of a toy when the company cranking these things out is right up the street (in Auburn, Washington). I could see if they were made in China and imported where the manufacturer is outside of our jurisdiction.
And I also have to suspend belief to accept that the justice department instigated an enforcement act before checking to see if a crime had even been committed by examining the patent. Surely, the complaint included the patent as an exhibit in order to substantiate the claim or if not, somebody had to look the patent over and wouldn't they rather find a reason not to enforce it like citing its expiration?
Other nagging questions persist. Like why the reporter didn't ask the lady at the Imm/Cust office why they harassed this lady when the claim was bogus? Surely, the proprietor mentioned that to the reporter.
Something seems absent from the story as presented in the article.