>You know, I'll never understand the immediate and swift "who cares" response when people are discussing a subject as some sort of "Excuse me but...". If there's a disagreement you wish to voice, voice it-let's not act like people aren't interested in it because of your disagreement.
Sorry Dave, not how I meant it. You stated a fact (Thiel spent a lot of money on the litigation), so its not like I disagree. And my "Who gives a shit", is not a dismissive "who cares", but an honest probing question: who is behind raising Thiel's financing as an issue. I back it up with legitimate instances of litigation financing no one else would care about (credit cards, loans, family, etc...). In other words the forces behind these disparaging articles about the concept of litigation financing is the result of the very same backroom deals and undue influence that is raised by the articles themselves (its pretty brilliant really). Yes, that last part is pure opinion.
Further, I highlighted the actual legal mechanisms Gawker had to mitigate its legal costs. This is mostly because I think a major argument against Thiel financing is that he unnecessarily bleed Gawker, the counter is they bleed themselves by not settling.
>with the intent to win not on the merits of the case but by exhausting legal resources of their legal opponent.
9 out of 10 cases settle, this case actually went to a judgment at trial, that is the very definition of winning a case on the merits. Its almost insanity that Gawker didn't settle it knowing they would be hit with punitive damages is found liable. Not to say you are part of the HN status quo, but HN takes a strong stance against settlements/pleas and this case epitomizes the concept of winning/losing on the merits. (For the record I am a strong advocate of both settlement and pleas)