|
From: | Rjack |
Subject: | Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .. |
Date: | Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:41:29 -0400 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
David Kastrup wrote:
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:In gnu.misc.discuss Andrew Halliwell <spike1@ponder.sky.com> 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.
First and foremost in the litigation problem area is the SFLC. After five consecutive frivolous lawsuits they are gaining quite the reputation as a pain in the ass to the capitalist system.
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.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |