Talk:Ropes & Gray

Untitled

Please do not remove the clean-up tag unless you have altered the article to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. These tags exist to alert editors that an article needs work. Otherwise, the article could potentially be nominated for deletion as being unencyclopedic. ... discospinster _talk 23:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing the clean-up tag from Ropes and Gray until it conforms with WP:NPOV. This is considered vandalism. If you disagree with the tag's presence, please make a note of your opinion on the article's talk page. ... discospinster _talk 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed what I see as the non-NPOV material. I think the article is now clean. Can I remove the tag that says this is an advertisement? pbhayani

I think the summer associates at Ropes and Gray got a little carried away with editing this page for shits and giggles. I believe any of the older entries (circa 01/2006) are fine.

Patent Extortion?

Based on recent events at my company, R&G seem to be one of the many law firms specializing in "patent extortion". If you are unfamiliar with this ploy, it works like this. Find a company that managed to get some incredibly broad patent that basically covers some technical methodology that's been used by essentially anyone with a brain; software algorithms are particularly ripe for this activity. Next take on the owner of the patent as a client and look for *anybody* who has any product that uses any feature even remotely like the the (generally vague) patent. Next pick a smallish company from the collection of 'offenders' and threaten them with a costly patent infringement suit unless they capitulate to your outlandish licensing demands. Repeat until you find a sucker who pays up, and then use this precedent to go after a much larger company with deep pockets. The key is to pick a patent from a company that's essentially bankrupt, so that no bad press can hurt it and they have nothing to lose. The law firm of course collects big time if any of their extortion actually works. It's like an uptown version of "ambulance chasing" that requires good and productive companies to spend thousands on lawyer fees to defend themselves from frivolous charges.

The specific case in point is to claim that a patent on "compressing data to send it faster over computer networks" is somehow applicable to a wide range of compression methodologies used throughout the computer industry. That such a patent was ever awarded suggests how broken the system is. An ethical law firm would presumably not be involved in such bogus claims. The great irony of R&G doing this is that on their web site they are advertising a workshop about upcoming changes in patent law and how it might affect your business. Too bad the law won't drive firms like this out of business.

Brentsdad 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a place to discuss changes to the entry, not air your grievances with your company's prosecution for patent violation.-Lciaccio 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, "Brentsdad," if you don't like getting sued, stop stealing other people's patents! An ethical company wouldn't do that—hint, the law is driving your firm out of business, what does that tell you?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.52.72 (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nameplate info?

Is this really worth mentioning? I tend to think it isn't. Information like this seems too trivial on a serious article about a legal firm. --John (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not author the nameplate info. It was already there. I think I might have deleted it by accident when I was editing that section, or perhaps someone else deleted it. I just put it back because it was already there before I started editing it. I could care less if you delete it or not. Wikiman1978 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)wikiman1978

I deleted it as unencyclopedic. I intend to take it out again if nobody objects. Thank you.--John (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)