81–90 of 431 posts
That being said, patent trolling is obviously a problem, and legislation to fix the problem is making its way through Congress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That helps, but the judge working cases his son's law firm also works is pretty bad too.
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.
A small probability of a high (but known) fee is something that can in principle be insured against, no?
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…
Whether you have money or not the real problem is the threat of loss due to the /process/ as opposed the merits and likely result of the case. That is the problem that needs to be solved.
I'm not saying I know how to remove the expense of the process out of the equation but that is what needs to be done.
Your suggestion is a good one. If the result itself is clearer earlier it would take some of the power out of the threat of expensive process.
He had just won a three year litigation with the same group, after which they pointed out that even though he had won a battle, they had enough BS patents to keep him in court for several lifetimes. He is currently in year 4 out of a projected 450.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the added wrinkle in this particular case that the patent troll is also suing a bunch of little guys who decided to use Google Play Store.
Sounds like they are suing whoever they can including Minecraft which isn't a small fish. There is a form of patent trolling that only goes after small guys. But they'd avoid actually litigating the patent and just push a settlement. They'd never take it to trial because little guys can't pay out enough to justify the cost of a patent trial. That form is basically extortion. They ask for a small sum of money to just…
Outrageous.
Surprised there isn't a more meaningful response from Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about a right to a defense attorney in a civil case? That way you can't bring frivolous suits. That's actually exactly how the criminal courts work too. This seems too simple of a solution though, are there good reasons not to do this?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 yoursel…
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.
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…