[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:37:27 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.91 (gnu/linux)

Alan Mackenzie <> writes:

> In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup <> wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <> writes:
>>> In gnu.misc.discuss Andrew Halliwell <> wrote:
>>>> It'd stop a lot of fishing for out of court settlements if the
>>>> accused was no longer terrified of being bankrupted for being found
>>>> not guilty. Where's the justice in that? The innocent should face
>>>> absolutely no consequences for being willing to defend themselves and
>>>> winning.
>>> And, let's be honest, the losing party shouldn't have to face
>>> bankruptcy either.
>> Depends.  I don't like the "don't do any legal risk assessment,
>> government has to bail us out anyway" mentality.  People should take
>> responsibility for their actions.
> I think you've misunderstood me.  I meant that the whole legal palaver
> should be streamlined so that the costs a losing bona-fide litigant is
> faced with are moderate, not that somebody else should bail the loser
> out.  (See: I've learnt how to spell "loser" ;-).

The problem is how to deal with people that make litigation a pastime.
Now the legal system is important enough that people without the
personal means to ask for justice get provided with state lawyers and
similar.  Being bankrupt does not mean that you have lost your obvious
rights or ways to get them.

But for companies, legal expenses are part of the standard running
expenses.  Once this gets turned into a sport without proper risk
management, it becomes hard to desire everybody to pay for it.  After
all, we usually don't get broadcasts for our entertainment.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]