Talk:Vroegh v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Move?

I think most of this article should be moved to a separate article on Gutride Safier. --Brianyoumans 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is fine as is. An article about them would include other cases as well, presumably. There's enough content here for a dedicated article on this case. — Omegatron 21:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think there is plenty of material here for a separate article on the law firm, and I think that would be a better place for the material - it doesn't directly relate to the case, except to show that there is a history of similar cases - which could be mentioned in a sentence or two, with a reference to the other article. --Brianyoumans 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else wants to separate the firm from the suit, I have other information on the law firm that could help create a little article on the law firm. They seem to appear fairly regularly (for a law firm) in the San Francisco press. They also seem to have built their practice on frivolous and nuisance lawsuits. Which, of course, I would not state in the article unless some newspaper makes such a case. I think it's interesting that they seem to have zeroed in on the binary prefix issue, not to mention the netflix thing. I'm much more familiar with the Vroegh case than Gutride Safier. But they have a web site that lists a multitude of their cases which should help make the article grow a little faster. If the separation takes place, should their cases be listed only if they either also have a WP article or an article in a major newspaper? --JJLatWiki 18:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]