Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


LEGAL The Great Texas Courtroom Blunder Could Cost Us All
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    America, The Beautiful
    Posts
    42,829

    2 The Great Texas Courtroom Blunder Could Cost Us All

    WTH!


    https://townhall.com/columnists/gera...s-all-n2553024


    The Great Texas Courtroom Blunder Could Cost Us All

    Gerard Scimeca
    Posted: Sep 14, 2019 12:01 AM

    The Godfather author Mario Puzo once said one lawyer with a briefcase can steal more money than 100 men with guns. Anyone curious how much can be stolen by an army of lawyers with briefcases need look no further than an outrageous jury verdict in Texas that twisted a simple breach of contract claim into a three-quarters of a billion dollar windfall. The verdict is not just a case study of win-at-all-costs legal tactics, but a potential watershed that, if not reversed n appeal, could throttle the development of new technologies and inflict irreparable damage on intellectual property rights.

    The saga begins in 2015 when realty firm Title Source, Inc. (now Amrock), entered into a $5 million contract with a small startup company, HouseCanary, for the development of a “revolutionary” mobile app to create property appraisal reports to predict home resale values. Valuation models are quite common in the real estate industry, readily seen by home buyers on sites such as Zillow or Redfin. The data-based algorithm HouseCanary promised to deliver would be entirely new, with cutting-edge technology and proprietary data models.

    There was just one problem; HouseCanary had no technology to offer and was wholly incapable of developing any. A prototype of the app was missing key features and third party testers rated it as “mediocre” – hardly the “revolutionary” technology promised. HouseCanary demanded more time, but Amrock instead cut bait and filed a lawsuit to recover the $5 million from the original agreement. At this point the case was a tidy tale of straightforward breach, but an army of lawyers had other ideas.

    Despite having a client that failed to deliver on its contractual obligation, HouseCanary attorneys went full Tony Soprano and countersued, making the entirely absurd claim that Amrock had stolen and misappropriated their trade secrets by creating an app to replace the one that was never developed.

    This was a bold tactic for a defendant who failed to establish in court any evidence they had given Amrock any trade secrets to misappropriate. It’s even more ludicrous given the post-trial sworn testimony of a HouseCanary executive that the company sold “vapor ware” and stated under oath, “From my knowledge… there wasn’t anything to steal.” Yet despite this the jury found in favor of HouseCanary, and then proceeded to award them $706 million in damages (since increased to include interest and attorney fees), an eyeball-popping figure more in line with the misappropriation of a Picasso than a non-existent app.

    Though the verdict is a fraud, HouseCanary attorneys were masterful in manipulating the jury by pressing emotional hot-buttons and through sleight of hand deceit that entirely misled them on the technical aspects central to the trial. What makes this case especially dangerous is how easy it will be for other frivolous patent lawsuits to copy this deceptive blueprint and shake down tech leaders for a big payday. If a $5 million claim can be escalated into a phony jury award 150 times in size, the consequences for investment into new technology will be devastating, and will throttle potential agreements for cooperation in innovation.

    When testimony failed to produce any evidence in support of HouseCanary’s misappropriation claim, their attorneys doubled-down with a fish tale of their own. They convinced the jury that instead of stealing trade secrets, Amrock had fed HouseCanary data (which was not, in fact, their data) into a “magic machine” to reverse engineer a replacement app. Yes, they actually used the words “magic” and “machine” as the entire basis of their case. To make it stick, HouseCanary lawyers framed the dispute in terms of a big, rich, out of town company shoving around a small local operation, and inflamed the jury by telling them to “send a message” to “corporate America” that would make the “Wall Street Journal.” In essence Amrock was convicted of being a successful company from out of town that used magic to deceive a small local startup.

    The entire case is a cautionary tale that confounds every sensibility. All evidence points to HouseCanary failing to deliver as promised and breaching the contract, yet justice was tortured to throttle the party with a viable claim. This represents a significant danger well beyond the courtroom walls.

    When parties can file bogus intellectual property claims, it scares off both investment and cooperation into developing new technologies and economic innovations. The bigger the return on investment, the bigger target one is for a frivolous lawsuit. This has a direct and negative impact on consumers and economic productivity, cannibalizing progress in the dining hall of the nearest courtroom.

    If this case is not reversed it will give a green light to every legal jester to pursue a jury award rivaling the GDP of a small country through outrageous claims of fraud and trade secret misappropriation. It will certainly corrode patent protections that are the lifeblood of investment in technology so critical to our economy. Massive damage awards must be paid by somebody, and in the end, it will be all of us. Let us hope this massive wrong is set right.


    Gerard Scimeca is an attorney and Vice President of CASE, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, a free-market oriented consumer advocacy organization.
    The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tennessee's version of Gotham (Knoxville)
    Posts
    4,101
    So a real estate firm pays a software developer 5mil to make a smart phone app. They are unable to do so adequately and are sued to recover damages after there was not leeway to allow errors to be corrected. The software developer then countersued claiming they were getting robbed blind. In all honesty this sounds more like a case where contracts were not honored and the real estate firm was clueless on what kind of software developer they needed to use.
    1 Corinthians 18:20 “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

  3. #3
    Jury of emoters it sounds like to me.

    Why are argue facts that the jury does not not have the education to understand when emotions are much easier to manipulate?
    Matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    1 tank of fuel from potential chaos
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by mistaken1 View Post
    Jury of emoters it sounds like to me.

    Why are argue facts that the jury does not not have the education to understand when emotions are much easier to manipulate?
    I can't and won't try to decipher the particulars of this case. I do think a higher court will work it out. Our system is designed so that the appellate courts should have less emotional influence the higher it goes.

    Jury nullification and jury emotions keep some defendants "not guilty". Appellate courts keep these civil train wrecks to a minimum. jmo

    Frivolous lawsuits are nothing new. (Not sure what extent that has here) This system isn't perfect, but it is the best on the planet.
    "You are allowed to be disappointed but not surprised"

  5. #5
    Too many stupid people out there.
    I'd hate to face a jury for anything these days.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Farvana
    Posts
    13,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Faroe View Post
    Too many stupid people out there.
    I'd hate to face a jury for anything these days.
    I’d hate to BE on a jury these days. Might have to jump out a window.

    In this case it would be nice if the jury actually had software developers on it who understand that rarely do you have management who know what they want and even rarer for them to be able to describe what they want. Then they change what they want and expect the damn stuff to still take the same amount of time as the originally proposed crap they came up with. And SOMETIMES even if there are no changes it may still take longer to program it all. Yes, the developers are supposed to figure out what they REALLY want before beginning but I have never seen management actually understand what they really want or what it takes to get there. Ever. Jury of your peers my aspen tree.
    The Operative: “The path to peace is paved with corpses. It’s always been so.”

    Malcolm Reynolds: “So me and mine got to lie down and die so you can live in your better world?”

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    A Multi-Demensional Quantum Environment.
    Posts
    52,265
    Quote Originally Posted by mistaken1 View Post
    Jury of emoters it sounds like to me.

    Why are argue facts that the jury does not not have the education to understand when emotions are much easier to manipulate?
    Houston. The Jury was likely low-double digit IQ.
    "It ain't no secret I didn't get these scars falling over in church."


    "My Shoes are too Tight. But it is ok as I have forgotten how to Dance."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SE Okieland
    Posts
    6,950
    Quote Originally Posted by mistaken1 View Post
    Jury of emoters it sounds like to me.

    Why are argue facts that the jury does not not have the education to understand when emotions are much easier to manipulate?
    Defense and Plaintiff Attorneys do not want intelligence jurors for it makes their lies harder to cover up....

    Texican....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.