Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask Exxon
Surely there's a specific lawsuit you can refer to rather than pointing at a company and hoping that we can guess which case you're referring to?
We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
51–60 of 74 posts
Re: We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
#52Re: We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
#53There must be strong punishment for frivolous lawsuits. This company is entirely in the wrong and the execs should be in prison, but instead they are wasting time and money with the copyright and other bullshit, trying to demotivate and distract the researchers.
Polish person here, as far as I understand, our SLAPP protections are basically nonexistent, which is why this is allowed to happen. In the US, a lawsuit like this would never fly.
SLAPP laws in the US vary from place to place, from fairly strong to non-existent. California has strong anti-SLAPP protection, whereas Michigan and Alabama have none at all. There is no federal anti-SLAPP law. So at least federally and in certain US states such litigation would absolutely fly in the US.
Re: We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely there's a specific lawsuit you can refer to rather than pointing at a company and hoping that we can guess which case you're referring to?
You're welcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Litigat...
Still not a specific case. If you're referring to Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, that was decided in 2008, so at most that's 19 years if the lawsuit was filed immediately after the spill. Granted, this is more than the "5-10 years" I initially estimated, but the lengthy litigation is only over the punitive damages, so in the context of "Option C). Pay 1 billion to keep the lawsuit going forever.", that's not really applicable. At best you can keep litigation going for 19 years to avoid paying the full amount, but you're going to have to compensatory damages far before that.
Re: We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
#55Newag, the company from the presentation is still getting fat government contracts: https://en.railmarket.com/news/rolling-stock/25459-newag-s-g...
They can’t be banned from participating in public tenders without due process. Tenders tend to have the price as the most important factor in choosing the winner.
Tenders also tend to have specific requirements and "don't sabotage the trains" seems like it would be a useful one
Re: We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Option C). Pay 1 billion to keep the lawsuit going forever.
Can you really keep a lawsuit going "forever"? You'd probably run out of appeal options around 5-10 years in.
This is what Alex Jones / Info Wars is trying to do; it's sort-of working in that things have taken longer than they otherwise would, but it's slowly coming to an end anyway.
Re: We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Option C). Pay 1 billion to keep the lawsuit going forever.
Can you really keep a lawsuit going "forever"? You'd probably run out of appeal options around 5-10 years in.
I guess if you can manage 10 years there's a pretty high chance that the other side will give up, for instance https://commonwealthbeacon.org/environment/cape-wind-calls-q...
Same as trying to do a construction project in San Francisco, people will come out of the woodwork [edit: meaning separate cases, but with the same basic goal] with tons of money and delay, delay, delay. https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/12/20/nefsa-new-england-fishe...
Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but clearly the tactic is to come up with any challenge that takes time to resolve whether reasonable or not just because of the time and expense.
Re: We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's VERY unlikely EU funds were never involved. Public transport and transport infrastructure is often incentivized with public money, usually with EU participation. It's hard to find big projects that had 0 EU funding.
It's not a magic spell that works across corporate entity boundaries. The company itself must have taken a relevant contract project. There must be a clear intent to defraud the EU fund (defrauding others is not enough).
> There must be a clear intent to defraud the EU fund (defrauding others is not enough).
Saying defrauding others does not seem right to me. If you defraud a distributor of EU funds, that may have impacted EU funds; they would have a claim.
Do you have a source for your assertion?
Re: We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
#59This happens in every industry heavily interconnected with politics. An individual revealing fraud or corruption is subject to regular bullying and stalking or to SLAPP when the case has gained publicity. Only now the German and American standards have arrived to Poland, long awaited.
Yeah, Eva Joly's memoirs were instructive in this... in particular that discussion with a general who told her how she was lucky to be investigating the oil business, rather than the weapons business, or she would be dead already.
Re: We've not been trained for this: life after the Newag DRM disclosure [video]
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can’t be banned from participating in public tenders without due process. Tenders tend to have the price as the most important factor in choosing the winner.
Tenders also tend to have specific requirements and "don't sabotage the trains" seems like it would be a useful one
How do you encode that into a requirement that won’t be thrown out by the courts as libel or targetting a specific manufacturer?