Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 431 posts

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#21

Post by kefka »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #12
distances wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Loser pays" would go a long way, I think. Not being that familiar with the US system, what's the reasoning not to have this?

If loser pays, poor people would be discouraged from even attempting to sue rich people. Even if the poor person has a legitimate claim, there is a small probability that the rich person will win with their superior lawyers and the poor person will be bankrupted by the legal fees. Since they will know that from the beginning, they won't sue in the first place.

It could be done that it is not loser pays by default. Instead, if a case is won, and the case was deemed frivolous, only then could loser-pays be enacted.

But it still doesn't solve the idea that the "Law is more equal the more money you have." .

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#23

Post by brianwawok »

kefka wrote: post #21
saint_fiasco wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If loser pays, poor people would be discouraged from even attempting to sue rich people. Even if the poor person has a legitimate claim, there is a small probability that the rich person will win with their superior lawyers and the poor person will be bankrupted by the legal fees. Since they will know that from the beginning, they won't sue in the first place.

It could be done that it is not loser pays by default. Instead, if a case is won, and the case was deemed frivolous, only then could loser-pays be enacted. But it still doesn't solve the idea that the "Law is more equal the more money you have." .

This is essentially how it works today, from my understanding.

If you lose and your suit was 100% without merrit, you can be sued for lawyer fees.

From what I understand, the problem is the bar for meritless is very very very high. Not sure how you legislate that. I think most lawsuits are meritless. A lawyer may have a very different opinion.

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#24

Post by [deleted] »

InvisibleCities wrote: post #18
tomglynch wrote: post #8

A comment from a reddit thread states: The gist behind this case is that the Judge's son owns patent law firm in East Texas where they often represent both sides. This guy doesn't live in East Texas. However, the dad lets these stupid cases into the town to bring business to his son. Really shady. I agree with clavelle's comment. It's not so much the laws, but the system that allows this to occur. Link here: https://…

> The gist behind this case is that the Judge's son owns patent law firm in East Texas where they often represent both sides. Isn't this a blatant conflict of interest? If this isn't grounds for disbarment, what is?

[deleted]

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#25

Post by HillaryBriss »

dingo_bat wrote: post #13

Someone with money and lawyers needs to sue the state of Texas for allowing a father and son duo to practice in such a conflict of interest fashion. This is a clear cut case of corruption.

Isn't this the federal court system? Not sure: is Texas even able to do anything about this?

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#26

Post by mfoy_ »

InvisibleCities wrote: post #18
tomglynch wrote: post #8

A comment from a reddit thread states: The gist behind this case is that the Judge's son owns patent law firm in East Texas where they often represent both sides. This guy doesn't live in East Texas. However, the dad lets these stupid cases into the town to bring business to his son. Really shady. I agree with clavelle's comment. It's not so much the laws, but the system that allows this to occur. Link here: https://…

> The gist behind this case is that the Judge's son owns patent law firm in East Texas where they often represent both sides. Isn't this a blatant conflict of interest? If this isn't grounds for disbarment, what is?

Maybe the firm doesn't represent both sides simultaneously. Maybe they usually represent the patent troll, but if someone needs a patent troll defense lawyer they'll do that too. Basically, as long as patent litigation is in town, business is good.

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#28

Post by 6stringmerc »

So, no attempts to bring Davis in front of the Texas BAR association for unethical practices?

I'm also curious why numerous developers have not demanded an Insurance Protection Product / Plan that would take a premium in return for subrogation (defense) if a frivolous Patent Suit is filed. I'm rather certain the market exists and while it may be for larger businesses or players, developers forming a Mutual Company and writing on some big name AM Best A paper (or even going to Lloyds) could be helpful.

Anybody know of such an organization or idea?

I guess my line of thinking here is that "Yes, this is totally unfair and rigged" and then move on to "How do I work around the issues, at least to a limited extent, to avoid these pitfalls?" Sign me up for reform, sure, I'm all for it. Until then, I don't like banging my head against walls, I prefer to figure out ways around or over them.

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#29

Post by jules »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #12
distances wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Loser pays" would go a long way, I think. Not being that familiar with the US system, what's the reasoning not to have this?

If loser pays, poor people would be discouraged from even attempting to sue rich people. Even if the poor person has a legitimate claim, there is a small probability that the rich person will win with their superior lawyers and the poor person will be bankrupted by the legal fees. Since they will know that from the beginning, they won't sue in the first place.

This comes up every single time, but it remains false. Loser pays does not mean that the loser has to pay a gigantic amount for the opponent's extremely expensive lawyers. Loser pays means that the judge determines what is a reasonable amount for the legal fees. Often the amount you have to pay for your opponent's lawyers is limited to what you paid for your own. So unless you hire extremely expensive lawyers yourself, you won't have to pay a huge amount if you lose. If a party wants a much more expensive defence they have to pay for that extra cost regardless of whether they win.

Almost every country except the United States uses this system.

Re: Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

#30

Post by igravious »

brianwawok wrote: post #23
kefka wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be done that it is not loser pays by default. Instead, if a case is won, and the case was deemed frivolous, only then could loser-pays be enacted. But it still doesn't solve the idea that the "Law is more equal the more money you have." .

This is essentially how it works today, from my understanding. If you lose and your suit was 100% without merrit, you can be sued for lawyer fees. From what I understand, the problem is the bar for meritless is very very very high. Not sure how you legislate that. I think most lawsuits are meritless. A lawyer may have a very different opinion.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

A lawyer's salary depends on him not having the opinion that most lawsuits are meritless.

Post reply on HN