Well, these documents leave not much room for interpretation. Good to see that fraudulent and frivolous litigation is not rewarded. The plaintiff appears to be a total sleez bag...
Well I am not sure about that. It seems to me that, given the date of the original patent (1995) there may well be a strong argument in favour of the plaintiff. Fortunately for Hasselblad he either chose to represent himself, in part, or alternatively could not afford expert legal and technical advice. Seems to me, rather like taking sides in a divorce, that there is an argument to be made for both sides. In Hasselblad's shoes I may have taken the option of paying what would have probably been a fraction of the legal fees to settle. I just hate giving money to lawyers but I also agree that one should not accede to what is effectively blackmail.