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

111–120 of 431 posts

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

#111

Post by thegasman »

djrogers wrote: post #50
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…

> Good facts make good cases much more frequently than good lawyers make good cases. Demonstrably not in the case of patent lawsuits, especially in east texas.

I don't fully understand what you're insinuating. Could you explain?

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

#112

Post by jsprogrammer »

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?

In some US jurisdictions you will eventually be sent to jail for failure to pay court fees.

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

#113

Post by DannyBee »

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.

I'm not even sure where to begin with this :) First, you can't sue a state without their permission, they have sovereign immunity. Second, you would have no standing unless you were directly affected Third, outside of violating non-binding legal ethics rules, it's not clear what law you think this somehow violates.

The state can pretty much do whatever it wants here.

Plus, all of this is federal anyway, so suing the state of texas would accomplish nothing.

Outside of random statutes, your best bet would probably be due process violations, but ...

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

#114

Post by bruceb »

knorker wrote: post #98
joshuaheard wrote: post #81

A couple of misconceptions in this video. Patent infringement is not a crime. A son lawyer appearing in front of his judge father would not be allowed for conflict of interest in most circumstances. That being said, patent trolling is obviously a problem, and legislation to fix the problem is making its way through Congress.

1) Did he say crime? I don't think he ever did. 2) He never said the son appeared in front of his judge father. I'm almost 100% on that too. So misconceptions in what you misheard, I guess.

He did say crime but not in a way that meant criminal justice crime. More of a "I am guilty of the crime of being beautiful"

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

#115

Post by stormbrew »

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…

The former issue is a valid concern, but I actually think combined these almost form a resolution to the issue.

I don't think BigCorpA could get away with simply gifting a lawyer a large sum of money to work on cases with arbitrarily low costs, but I do think they could have contract lawyers who work for the fee their opposition works. These small frivolous cases run by a person representing themself should not require millions to get shut down as being such (and if they are that's a different legal system dysfunction), but there'd be more than enough cases where the amount spent is large and being on deck for those would be worth it to a good lawyer. Not to mention cases where the company thinks upping the spend is worth it to defend on something real and important.

Note that I don't think your scenario is actually all that different from the current reality, other than the idea that your opposition is funding you, but there are almost certainly arrangements where this would not be the case.

Also, if your case is dismissed as frivolous I think you would not get any of the fund regardless.

Good points :)

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

#116

Post by stormbrew »

gph wrote: post #109
knodi123 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 t…

Yep, that is what I meant.

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

#118

Post by orbitingpluto »

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…

Nothing astounds me more than the Herculean lengths a judge will go to to avoid the 'core legal questions' in a case. Not only in the judgement, but by disallowing even the most basic testimony or evidence to be presented. While this violates due process or 'the principle of natural justice', no judge on appeal ever seems to rule that the lower court judge was acting in an obviously corrupt manner. The fiction of the system of justice has to be preserved.

This is further compounded by how vague judges will be in their decisions in some attempt to prevent a successful appeal. The judgements relation to the facts are so intentionally obtuse.

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

#119

Post by gpm »

gph wrote: post #109
knodi123 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 t…

The problem knodi is raising is that pro se litigants don't have the same cause as normal ones, because they aren't paying for lawyers.

A solution to this might be to say that any money not sent on the case is given back to the person who payed more, so it's not an avenue for making money.

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

#120

Post by stormbrew »

thegasman wrote: post #106
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…

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?

Well, in my premise there is no need for agreement. If side A thinks it's worth $N and side B thinks it's worth $M, they each get ($N-$M)/2 to work with. This asymmetry is what makes it a bad choice to try to overpower a less wealthy opponent by simply outspending them.

I haven't really thought through the consequences of requiring some kind of agreement in advance, but my instinct is it couldn't really work just because being obstinate would be heavily rewarded.

Post reply on HN