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

[Rjack]

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.