Talk:J. Rodney Gilstrap

Political contribution history
Why did Wynonna22 remove the Judge's political contribution history? The links are valid and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.165.172.37 (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Not from the US or the UK. Judges can face some public questions in my country. Don't know the rule in the US. Looks this judge did in 2015 almost half of the patent cases. See https://store.law.com/Registration/ResetPassword.aspx?mode=verify&u=DirkNN%40euphonynet.be&p=CC&v=6F648B2E-BB5F-45E0-B9E6-43B9943D658C Think worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.91.31 (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential POV problems and general wierdness
So looking through the edit history of this is really strange in that almost all of the content comes from anonymous sources. That isn't anything problematic in itself but the section now title notable decisions also just makes me uncomfortable. For a judge who is noted for his problematic relationship with patent trolls (e.g., this, this, or this articles) every single noted decision save one notes him as coming down against IP holders. Individually no big deal but accumulated this is a really strange set of cases to identify and use to creates a very different narrative than most people would tell about the subject of the article. The telling part is the summaries and the absence of any sort of case histories that provide a more complete picture. It seems targeted.

I'm going to update the list tonight and I will be curious to see what happens.