Thanks for that. It describes the sort of reasoning very well that the plantiff's attorney knows appeals to people in the area:

> Fenster described the inventor of the patent, Michael Jones, as a hard worker.

> “He doesn’t have all these fancy degrees,” said Fenster. “He’s a hard worker, creative, smart, an innovative guy, and he loves technology. He’s great at recognizing problems of the future and finding solutions.”

The article is entirely one sided and reads as if the plaintiff himself wrote it. As it is the only exciting thing happening in town, many of the jury member's family and friends will be reading articles of this sort during these trials, representing only one side of the case.-

Amazing that the article notes the patent was awarded in 1995 and fails to mention that RC4 was invented in 1987.

> “He doesn’t have all these fancy degrees,” said Fenster.

I find it funny that Fenster, after praising Jones in this way, would attack Diffie's credibility by pointing out that he lacks a master's or PhD.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-trial-cryp...

Wow, pardon my french, but what the fuck is this article. This sounds like a paid advertisement. "The company, owned by Erich Spangenberg, of Dallas, is seeking a reasonable royalty of $5.1 million." How much did they get paid for that line?

Used in this context, "reasonable royalty" is a legal term that describes the money that is to be paid due to the infringement. I don't believe the author was making a judgement call on the fairness of the award.

Oh! Okay, this explains a great deal.

I didn't get that. It spends roughly the first half presenting the TQP arguments and roughly the second half presenting the Newegg arguments. They sound like they might be quotes from the case's opening arguments.

If they are, I can see why TQP won. The TQP statements do a much better job of appealing to emotion, talking about "the little guy" who "doesn't have all these fancy degrees." A "hard worker" who created "the invention that makes [Internet credit card] transactions safe," and TQP saw companies "using it and not paying for it," so they "invested millions of dollars" and now "more than 125 companies, including PetSmart and Amazon" have taken licenses.

Can't say I like the results, but I can see why it worked. It tells a story that people love to believe.

I meant "slant" compared to the OP where Ars just calls TQP a patent troll straight up.