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

101–110 of 431 posts

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

#101

Post by dang »

phaed wrote: post #77
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://…

Did you even watch the video? He says it right on there.

That's true, but please edit did-you-even-read challenges out of your posts to HN. That's in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

It's enough to just point out what the article/video says, like your second sentence does.

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

#102

Post by dylan-m »

tronium wrote: post #52

Interestingly, the login button doesn't even work at uniloc.com, and if you look in the source, there's a ton of commented-out paragraphs that say stuff like " The spirit of innovation is alive and well at Uniloc. ".

Fun fact: their website has listings turned on and runs an ancient version of WordPress last touched in 2012.

http://www.uniloc.com/wp-content/

It's like they're trying to be as obviously illiterate as they possibly can.

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

#103

Post by thegasman »

yrro wrote: post #88
mundo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has a right to a defense attorney, just not a free one. Are you suggesting that the government (which is to say, taxpayers) fund the legal defense of everyone who gets sued in America? Including, say, OJ Simpson's civil suit?

The winning party should be able to apply to the court for a costs order once the case has been decided, and the court can decide whether their reasonable costs should be borne by the loser.

^This happens routinely

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

#104

Post by Silhouette »

protomyth wrote: post #80
Silhouette wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't follow. Does "donors" have some technical meaning here?

Judges in the US run for office like politicians and thus have donors to their campaigns. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

What I don't see is how anyone who is inherently subject to popular opinion can possibly rule impartially in the interests of justice, but that's a different question.

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

#106

Post by thegasman »

stormbrew wrote: post #45
thegasman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States. I agree, but I think we can be more specific. Criminals (or those accused of a crime) are constitutionally guaranteed an attorney. Civil plaintiffs/defendants, by contrast, have no such right. The anecdotes and experiences of HN users overwhelmingly describe the civil side of things. Civil lawsuits, IMO, should carry no guarantee of counsel at…

An interesting thought experiment along the lines of resolving this inequality is making it so that sides can only fund their civil case through a fund that both sides contribute to but both sides get an equal share. This means in order to frivolously sue someone, you have to be willing to fund their effort to defend against you. It probably breaks down a lot in cases involving multiple litigants (let alone class act…

This is clever!

I see at least one flaw, though: what if the two sides disagree about the amount of money that should be contributed to the fund?

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

#108

Post by js471 »

sheepleherd wrote: post #59
clavalle wrote: post #2

People will mention the problem with patents but I see another, perhaps bigger, problem: We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States. If you have money, you have the power to legally hold people with less over a barrel. That exploitable inequality is poison for a well functioning society. That is the problem that needs solving.

| We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States. If you have money, you have the power... Your POV that money distorts and helps determine winners, while seeming so prima facie obvious, does not come close to getting to the real problem. I know this because I have money and I've spent well over a million dollars on attorneys in the last decade and I got very little in the way of ... not just…

I would love to see more negative publicity used. A PR firm is a fraction of the cost of a law firm but can do a lot more damage to the other side. Unfortunately lawyers have this dogma that says never ever ever ever ever try to use negative publicity. This is obviously self serving. Most lawyers are clueless about social media post AOL and so this would take the battle into unfamiliar territory. Unfortunately the judges are in the same boat: Taking a legal matter to court of public opinion is to them like taking getting your gall bladder removed by a witch doctor.

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

#109

Post by gph »

knodi123 wrote: post #99
stormbrew wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting thought experiment along the lines of resolving this inequality is making it so that sides can only fund their civil case through a fund that both sides contribute to but both sides get an equal share. This means in order to frivolously sue someone, you have to be willing to fund their effort to defend against you. It probably breaks down a lot in cases involving multiple litigants (let alone class act…

"Hi, yes, I'd like to sue Apple for millions, and since I'm an unemployed armchair lawyer, I can make sure it takes a long while and a lot of tedious aggravation to beat me. Also, since I'm suing pro se, Apple would be paying me a salary equal to whatever their legal team makes for the duration of the trial. Or, you know, I'd be happy for Apple to just give me $100,000 to settle." Then repeat for every wealthy corp y…

If Apple knew it was a frivolous lawsuit that it barely needs to defend itself against, then it probably wouldn't put any money into the fund and just defend itself with half of whatever you put into the fund.

Maybe I'm reading the parent comment wrong, but I assumed this system would allow for unequal funding between the two sides. So if you think it's a frivolous lawsuit that you can easily win you would just let the other side fund the entire endeavour.

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

#110

Post by distances »

talmand wrote: post #89
distances wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I'm living in a "loser pays" country, and it's definitely not a limitless tap. Judges quite often settle the loser's extra costs down to a more reasonable number.

Curious, what if the reasonable number is more than the lower could possibly pay? As in, they simply do not have the resources to pay it?

I'd say it's just a debt as any other then.

Not directly related, but personal bankruptcies aren't a thing here. If a debt can't be paid, it goes to recovery proceedings, and will stay like that until it expires in (generally) 15-25 years.

Post reply on HN