Using multiple shells to hide the true parent seems to defeat the purpose of the local and/or federal rules required to disclose corporate ownership. Nobody seems to mind when it’s a mega-troll trying to hide, but what if, oh, Microsoft were to acquire some patents and hide them in a shell corporation, Linuxsux, LLC. And then they set up a parent of Linuxsux, which is LSX, LLC. Microsoft may own LSX, but in its FRCP 7.1 disclosure statement, it would only need to reveal that plaintiff Linuxsux is owned by LSX, a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Marshall, Texas. I bet there would be somewhat of an uproar if Microsoft started suing Red Hat, Novell, and other Linux users without revealing it was them. Not to mention it would defeat the purpose of allowing the judiciary to be able to examine true ownership for purposes of deciding whether to recuse.
That would make a nice analogy that helps the understanding of existing loopholes. Whose bloodstream is Acacia on anyway [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]? Follow the money. We have theories backed by evidence, but no clear answer yet.
There appears to be justice in this world after all. Microsoft once again gets another nice taste of its own poison.
An appeals court on Friday rejected Microsoft Corp.’s challenge to a $142 million trial loss over patents on a way to prevent software piracy.
Qualcomm is seeking an injunction that would stop Nokia selling products using the patents in Britain.