gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

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


From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:10:56 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss Andrew Halliwell <address@hidden> wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Rjack <address@hidden> writes:
 
>>>GNU fans never lose, they just mooooooooooooooooooove the goalposts.
 
>> I feel your pain. Asking for the maximum possible, and then settling for
>> a lot less, is a common strategy that is, unfortunately, embedded into
>> the adversary system of justice. 
 
>> Rjack, if it were up to you, how would you improve the system? Would you
>> propose a rule that once a party asks for a certain amount, it is not
>> permitted to take any less? How would you enforce this?

> The one thing that needs to be done to the system is Loser pays ALL bills,
> both the plaintiff's and the accused's.

I disagree.  What needs doing is a thorough reform of legal systems
throughout the world to improve their efficiency.  Can anybody explain to
me why a typical simple court case in the developed world takes 18 months
to resolve and costs the loser one, or even several years' earnings?

Realistically, I can't see why, say, a complaint against a neighbour
whose plumbing is leaking couldn't be resolved within four weeks of the
summons being served at a cost to the loser of at most a few hundred
pounds/euros/dollars.

Something a little (but not much) more complicated, SCO vs. IBM/Novell/..
shouldn't take more than 6 months at a total cost of at most a few ten
thousands of dollars.

Western legal systems make government IT projects look like the epitome
of efficiency and good management.

> It's already like that over here in the UK for most types of cases.

> 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.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).



reply via email to

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