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

[Rjack]

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi <c.c.eiftj@xrexxtomxt.usenet.us.com> wrote:
> > Rjack <user@example.net> 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.
>
> 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.

Should Microsoft with its vast, deep pockets be able to walk over
the little guy because he can't afford the risk of enormous
litigation costs? In the United States, preponderance of the
evidence means 50.000001% wins over 49.999999% of the evidence. Are
you willing to risk bankruptcy because a trier of fact interpreted
0.000001% of the evidence in you opponent's favor?

A clever law firm can inflate the costs of an opponent's discovery
in a lawsuit to amounts a small litigant could never afford.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)