🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BZS.92Dec26184506@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>Perhaps it's too late, if I were BSDI and USL did that to me I'd sue
>their pants off: Engage me in a suit, cause me business problems and
>direct costs, and then drop me admitting freely that they sued the
>wrong party for PR reasons or some such babble? Hah! I'd be happy to
>*invest* in the results of that counter-suit! It would be irrelevant
>if they were still ultimately affected by the outcome, knowingly suing
>the wrong party w/o a really good reason is not a good position to be
>in, particularly if you got deep pockets, I'd open the bidding in the
>high 7 digits.

The USL suit against BSDI is not exactly meritless.  There was the trademark
infringement action regarding BSDI's 1-800-ITS-UNIX number, that has already
been settled in USL's favor, as I remember.  That part of the suit was
certainly directed at the right party.

The current workings of the civil justice system encourages getting all
related disputes between two parties aired in a single suit, so once USL
decided to file on the trademark infringement, it was reasonable for it
to include the other charges.  And in "notice pleading" the complaint
only contains the basic allegations, with the specifics being developed
before trial in the discovery phase.

If USL had not added UCB as an additional defendant, BSDI might have had
to sue UCB as a third-party defendant over its warranty that Net/2 would
not infringe AT&T's proprietary rights.