[{"pubDate":"Sat, 10 Oct 2026 07:57:51 +0200","titre":"A Futile Search for “Truth”? Epistemically Unproductive Expenditures in Civil Lawsuits","url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/10/09/a-futile-search-for-truth-epistemically-unproductive-expenditures-in-civil-lawsuits/","source":"Slaw","id":3208263,"description":"Is this a rabbit, or is it a duck? It’s both. (You’ll see the two animals after a few seconds if you haven’t already). Known as Jastrow’s rabbit/duck, this image has been amusing people ever since it first appeared in a German newspaper in 1892). How much time and money should be spent trying to prove that Jastrow’s drawing is really a duck, or really a rabbit, or more one than the other? No time and no money at all. Our civil justice system tries to search for truth , in order to bring each lawsuit to a just resolution . . . [more] The post A Futile Search for “Truth”? Epistemically Unproductive Expenditures in Civil Lawsuits appeared first on Slaw"},{"titre":"How an “invention promotion” outfit demoted the truth","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/09/how-invention-promotion-outfit-demoted-truth","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200","description":"How an “invention promotion” outfit demoted the truth lfair September 13, 2017 | 11:15AM How an “invention promotion” outfit demoted the truth By Lesley Fair It sounds like there was some “inventing” going on at Florida-based invention promotion firm World Patent Marketing, but a Preliminary Injunction in a case brought by the FTC suggests it wasn’t the kind that unsuspecting consumers bargained for when they forked over millions of dollars based on the defendants’ misleading promises about patenting and promoting their products. For FTC watchers, the opinion is a page-turner from start to finish. We’ll focus on just a few of the claims the company “invented.” The defendants’ initial business model involved online ads that induced people to submit their product ideas. Salespeople responded, telling interested consumers that World Patent Marketing’s “review team” was researching the proposal because “the company is so selective with the ideas they choose to work with.” After a bit of a wait, salespeople called the would-be entrepreneur back to say: We had our final meeting with the Review Team regarding your idea. And basically from all the research that’s been done on [your idea], the research tells us there’s definitely potential to patent your idea. Because of that, I have the green light from the company to let you know that WPM wants to be a part of your new product idea and help you to protect it and bring it to the commercial marketplace. So, first of all congratulations! . . . The company loved your idea! They think it has a lot of potential. Especially the Sr. Product Director, who is in charge of which ideas are considered for the upcoming trade show. He sees some good opportunities ahead. But as the U.S. District Court concluded, those salespeople were reading the pitch from a script. In fact, “there is no evidence that WPM ever had a review team or rejected a large number of ideas.” What about the company’s “Global Invention Royalty Analysis” containing a marketability study created by a “Harvard University & MIT Research Team”? Despite the defendants’ claim that the “University” had given “the green light to continue,” the Court concluded that the defendants didn’t have a relationship with Harvard, MIT, or any other college. The defendants’ malarkey induced many consumers to pay between $9,000 and $65,000 for a “10 Point Patent Protection & Publicity Commitment.” (The pricier packages promised a “global patent.”) When consumers asked for updates, the defendants strung them along. Behind the scenes, the picture was less rosy because even when the company’s contract patent agents submitted applications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the PTO typically rejected them as deficient. In addition to patent services, the defendants claimed to offer product development and marketing know-how, touting that “some of the world’s most respected brands trust World Patent Marketing,” including, for example, Target. The FTC isn’t the only one to say that was balderdash. A representative for Target testified that the defendants had no relationship whatsoever with the national retailer. The Court also cited misrepresentations regarding purported “success stories,” licensing and manufacturing agreements, and an “Invention Team Advisory Board” with big-name members who didn’t actually advise the company or review invention proposals. One anecdote is particularly telling. When an undercover FTC investigator contacted the company, the salesperson claimed that the History Channel had run a “whole segment” on World Patent Marketing. The truth? The defendants paid $17,000 to air their own ad on the channel. It ran once – at 6:00 AM on January 29, 2015. Not surprisingly, consumers started to speak up when their hefty cash outlays","id":3197408,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"}]