If they are so upset, they should dump their shares...
In reality, maybe there needs to be better contract terms....such as a minimum amount of time that has to be worked and over what period etc. I believe tech companies colluded but tech employees have a responsibility to know what their worth. You can't run a business with employees switching every few weeks everytime they don't get their way on something.
So they are suing Apple because Apples' conduct got them sued? And the fact that they were sued was a waste of time and money - so to rectify the situation they are going to sue Apple?
Great, make the legal system only accessible to the wealthy; as if it wasn't enough already.
I’d be surprised, but I’m used to you not understanding things at this point.
If the LOSER PAYS THE COSTS, how does that prevent the poor from suing justifiably? Anyone too poor to maintain a case will have their costs paid when they win.
The only alternative–the winner paying the costs–is so deluded as to not even be an option.
I’d be surprised, but I’m used to you not understanding things at this point.
If the LOSER PAYS THE COSTS, how does that prevent the poor from suing justifiably? Anyone too poor to maintain a case will have their costs paid when they win.
The only alternative–the winner paying the costs–is so deluded as to not even be an option.
A justifiable lawsuit always wins? You think that? You think you can totally 100% rely upon that?
If filing a lawsuit carries a huge financial risk (especially if a poor person is suing a rich person, who will employ expensive lawyers thereby making their costs immense, and increasing the likelihood of the poor person losing), then you have a massive disincentive to sue. If only rich people can afford to take the risk of suing then you have an unbalanced legal system.
Do you understand that point? This is the classic argument for legal aid and capping legal expenses. If you knew anything about what you were talking about then you'd know that.
And obviously the winner paying the costs isn't the only alternative. That's not even what happens now - everyone pays their own costs. What an absurdly transparently false straw man. Congratulations on being king of your own pet hate.
A justifiable lawsuit always wins? You think that? You think you can totally 100% rely upon that?
If filing a lawsuit carries a huge financial risk (especially if a poor person is suing a rich person, who will employ expensive lawyers thereby making their costs immense, and increasing the likelihood of the poor person losing), then you have a massive disincentive to sue. If only rich people can afford to take the risk of suing then you have an unbalanced legal system.
Do you understand that point? This is the classic argument for legal aid and capping legal expenses. If you knew anything about what you were talking about then you'd know that.
And obviously the winner paying the costs isn't the only alternative. That's not even what happens now - everyone pays their own costs. What an absurdly transparently false straw man. Congratulations on being king of your own pet hate.
Based on a theoretical interpretation of the law justice will be served so regardless of the outcome the result is always justifiable.
Justice is the poor person suing being saddled with a mountain of debt because Tex Richman's army of lawyers were able to overwhelm the case that the legal aid lawyer could bring?
No.
Just read the paper in the morning; if there isn't a miscarriage of justice somewhere in there it'll be an unusual day.
A requirement for the loser to pays cost would be an abomination. If the judge has discretion on ordering the loser to pay or contribute to costs, that might be workable, but a flat rule? No fucking way.
A justifiable lawsuit always wins? You think that? You think you can totally 100% rely upon that?
No, but I never said that.
If only rich people can afford to take the risk of suing then you have an unbalanced legal system.
So… like now then.
That's not even what happens now - everyone pays their own costs. What an absurdly transparently false straw man. Congratulations on being king of your own pet hate.
Pretending there’s a fallacy fallacy doesn’t mean there’s a fallacy fallacy. That’s a fallacy fallacy fallacy. We’re changing the system as it is now, or maybe you don’t understand what we’re discussing.
I never claimed you did. I challenged you because you said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Anyone too poor to maintain a case will have their costs paid when they win.
Which presumes that they will win. My point is that the person in the right does not always win, for many reasons, which makes the loser pays costs model a horrible idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So… like now then.
Sure. If you'd been paying attention you might have noticed what I said when you originally replied to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Great, make the legal system only accessible to the wealthy; as if it wasn't enough already.
But the solution to something being unbalanced isn't to make it more unbalanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Pretending there’s a fallacy fallacy doesn’t mean there’s a fallacy fallacy. That’s a fallacy fallacy fallacy. We’re changing the system as it is now, or maybe you don’t understand what we’re discussing.
What are you jabbering about here? You said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The only alternative–the winner paying the costs–is so deluded as to not even be an option.
Which is absurd, because it's not the only alternative at all. There are lots of alternatives, including the status quo of people paying their own expenses, caps on legal expenses, a greater role for legal aid; lots of alternatives.
Which presumes that they will win. My point is that the person in the right does not always win…
Sounds more like that’s a problem with the way the trials themselves are handled rather than with reparations/punishment for frivolous suits in general.
But the solution to something being unbalanced isn't to make it more unbalanced.
It’s hardly more unbalanced if there’s punishment for doing wrong where there wasn’t before.
If your problem is with a “mandatory” covering of both costs, then simply set a legal precedent for the loser of a patent infringement trial pays both and then simply cite that in the damages of each subsequent case.
You're clueless and groping in the dark for an argument to back up your usual snarky, arrogant, petulant persona. You're 14 years old. Grow the **** up.
Sounds more like that’s a problem with the way the trials themselves are handled rather than with reparations/punishment for frivolous suits in general.
Losers pay costs has only a passing relationship to frivolous lawsuits. You can lose a suit that is not frivolous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It’s hardly more unbalanced if there’s punishment for doing wrong where there wasn’t before.
Stopping frivolous lawsuits at the cost of putting up major barriers between the unwealthy and the justice system is one measley step forward and ten hearty strides backwards. You're killing a slug with a sledgehammer and ruining your decking in the process. Nice one. Real good planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If your problem is with a “mandatory” covering of both costs, then simply set a legal precedent for the loser of a patent infringement trial pays both and then simply cite that in the damages of each subsequent case.
That's not what we were talking about at all. You were so wrong, and now you're brushing it off with "simply set a legal precedent" (Simply?! Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how the law works?).
Wrong, read the complain linked in this article. Apple is a defendant.
R. ANDRE KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of APPLE INC., Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY D. COOK, WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL, MILLARD (“MICKEY”) DREXLER, ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, ROBERT A. IGER, ANDREA JUNG, FRED D. ANDERSON, ESTATE OF STEVEN P. JOBS, deceased, and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants,
- and –
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Nominal Defendant.
The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.
Good for you. Klein maybe either greedy or he really needs the money.
Certainly, which is why the discussion has always been tied to patent lawsuits–specifically patent trolling.
I don't see that, but fine, let's go with it. Define frivolous to a benchmark that can be reasonably judged in a court. Go on. Simply set a precedent. Go on.
You talk big but you've got nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Okay. Read posts before replying to them, I guess. Maybe if I say it enough, it’ll get through your skull.
I read that part fine. What I must have misread was your avalanche of bullshit that claimed that the mandatory requirement was fine and the unhealthy would not be disadvantaged because they would win their "justifiable" cases. You seem to have conveniently forgotten your earlier rants that were built on batshit bricks and now just want to change the subject.
Of course my problem was the mandatory aspect. I was very clear about that from the start. But you were arguing something completely different. Don't just adopt my position as your own in argument against me.
Don't reply to me, I can't take any more of your shit. Or do if you want, but I'm not indulging your ignorance and arrogance any more tonight.
[CENTER][/CENTER]You have, indeed, identified the biggest weakness of Loser Pays: reduced access for plaintiffs with lower incomes. This weakness has been mitigated in other countries by public legal aid and by Legal Expenses Insurance (LEI). One of these variations is after-the-event insurance (ATE). You pay a small amount to an insurance company. In exchange, the insurance company will pay the legal costs if you lose. If you have a weak case, your premium will be higher, and some insurance companies might refuse to insure you even for a high premium--because their risk of losing is too high.
Loser pays is used in the vast majority of western democracies. There is an excellent article here:
Define frivolous to a benchmark that can be reasonably judged in a court.
Why not use the definition already in existence? You know, when the plaintiff, who has never used the patent, loses because the defendant was found not to have infringed upon it (or in the case of the invalidation thereof).
If you want to get really specific, define frivolous to mean that the patent was not only not in use, but did not even refer to the category of operation asserted in the filing.
What I must have misread was your avalanche of bullshit that claimed that the mandatory requirement was fine and the unhealthy would not be disadvantaged because they would win their "justifiable" cases.
If the patent is infringed, that will be found. If it was not, it will not be. Doesn’t seem like it’s too confusing a concept to grasp, really. “Doesn’t have the money to continue proving so” and “sometimes the truth isn’t followed in court” were YOUR creations, irrelevant to the topic itself–that the loser pays court costs.
Don't reply to me, I can't take any more of your shit.
If you’d just read posts before replying to them, that would solve a lot of your problems.
In our current me-myself-and-I culture it’s all about getting whatever you can get by any means. This includes corporations, CEOs, shareholders, customers, users, all of us. Don’t forget that lawyers conjure up these scenarios and then advertise for plaintiffs to “come forward.”
Comments
If they are so upset, they should dump their shares...
In reality, maybe there needs to be better contract terms....such as a minimum amount of time that has to be worked and over what period etc. I believe tech companies colluded but tech employees have a responsibility to know what their worth. You can't run a business with employees switching every few weeks everytime they don't get their way on something.
Until losers are required to pay costs this sort of nonsense will continue.
Great, make the legal system only accessible to the wealthy; as if it wasn't enough already.
That'll solve the world's problems.
So they are suing Apple because Apples' conduct got them sued? And the fact that they were sued was a waste of time and money - so to rectify the situation they are going to sue Apple?
indeed.
No, the executives.
I’d be surprised, but I’m used to you not understanding things at this point.
If the LOSER PAYS THE COSTS, how does that prevent the poor from suing justifiably? Anyone too poor to maintain a case will have their costs paid when they win.
The only alternative–the winner paying the costs–is so deluded as to not even be an option.
Fine. We'll make a judge or a triumvirate of judges decide if the lawsuit is without merit or frivolous.
I’d be surprised, but I’m used to you not understanding things at this point.
If the LOSER PAYS THE COSTS, how does that prevent the poor from suing justifiably? Anyone too poor to maintain a case will have their costs paid when they win.
The only alternative–the winner paying the costs–is so deluded as to not even be an option.
A justifiable lawsuit always wins? You think that? You think you can totally 100% rely upon that?
If filing a lawsuit carries a huge financial risk (especially if a poor person is suing a rich person, who will employ expensive lawyers thereby making their costs immense, and increasing the likelihood of the poor person losing), then you have a massive disincentive to sue. If only rich people can afford to take the risk of suing then you have an unbalanced legal system.
Do you understand that point? This is the classic argument for legal aid and capping legal expenses. If you knew anything about what you were talking about then you'd know that.
And obviously the winner paying the costs isn't the only alternative. That's not even what happens now - everyone pays their own costs. What an absurdly transparently false straw man. Congratulations on being king of your own pet hate.
Based on a theoretical interpretation of the law justice will be served so regardless of the outcome the result is always justifiable.
Justice is the poor person suing being saddled with a mountain of debt because Tex Richman's army of lawyers were able to overwhelm the case that the legal aid lawyer could bring?
No.
Just read the paper in the morning; if there isn't a miscarriage of justice somewhere in there it'll be an unusual day.
A requirement for the loser to pays cost would be an abomination. If the judge has discretion on ordering the loser to pay or contribute to costs, that might be workable, but a flat rule? No fucking way.
No, but I never said that.
So… like now then.
Pretending there’s a fallacy fallacy doesn’t mean there’s a fallacy fallacy. That’s a fallacy fallacy fallacy. We’re changing the system as it is now, or maybe you don’t understand what we’re discussing.
No, but I never said that.
I never claimed you did. I challenged you because you said this:
Anyone too poor to maintain a case will have their costs paid when they win.
Which presumes that they will win. My point is that the person in the right does not always win, for many reasons, which makes the loser pays costs model a horrible idea.
So… like now then.
Sure. If you'd been paying attention you might have noticed what I said when you originally replied to me:
Great, make the legal system only accessible to the wealthy; as if it wasn't enough already.
But the solution to something being unbalanced isn't to make it more unbalanced.
Pretending there’s a fallacy fallacy doesn’t mean there’s a fallacy fallacy. That’s a fallacy fallacy fallacy. We’re changing the system as it is now, or maybe you don’t understand what we’re discussing.
What are you jabbering about here? You said this:
The only alternative–the winner paying the costs–is so deluded as to not even be an option.
Which is absurd, because it's not the only alternative at all. There are lots of alternatives, including the status quo of people paying their own expenses, caps on legal expenses, a greater role for legal aid; lots of alternatives.
And yet you say there's only one.
Which presumes that they will win. My point is that the person in the right does not always win…
Sounds more like that’s a problem with the way the trials themselves are handled rather than with reparations/punishment for frivolous suits in general.
But the solution to something being unbalanced isn't to make it more unbalanced.
It’s hardly more unbalanced if there’s punishment for doing wrong where there wasn’t before.
If your problem is with a “mandatory” covering of both costs, then simply set a legal precedent for the loser of a patent infringement trial pays both and then simply cite that in the damages of each subsequent case.
You're clueless and groping in the dark for an argument to back up your usual snarky, arrogant, petulant persona. You're 14 years old. Grow the **** up.
lol, no.
Sounds more like that’s a problem with the way the trials themselves are handled rather than with reparations/punishment for frivolous suits in general.
Losers pay costs has only a passing relationship to frivolous lawsuits. You can lose a suit that is not frivolous.
Quote:
It’s hardly more unbalanced if there’s punishment for doing wrong where there wasn’t before.
Stopping frivolous lawsuits at the cost of putting up major barriers between the unwealthy and the justice system is one measley step forward and ten hearty strides backwards. You're killing a slug with a sledgehammer and ruining your decking in the process. Nice one. Real good planning.
Quote:
If your problem is with a “mandatory” covering of both costs, then simply set a legal precedent for the loser of a patent infringement trial pays both and then simply cite that in the damages of each subsequent case.
That's not what we were talking about at all. You were so wrong, and now you're brushing it off with "simply set a legal precedent" (Simply?! Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how the law works?).
Enough of your foolishness, I'm off out.
Certainly, which is why the discussion has always been tied to patent lawsuits–specifically patent trolling.
Okay. Read posts before replying to them, I guess.
Good for you. Klein maybe either greedy or he really needs the money.
Certainly, which is why the discussion has always been tied to patent lawsuits–specifically patent trolling.
I don't see that, but fine, let's go with it. Define frivolous to a benchmark that can be reasonably judged in a court. Go on. Simply set a precedent. Go on.
You talk big but you've got nothing.
Okay. Read posts before replying to them, I guess.
Maybe if I say it enough, it’ll get through your skull.
I read that part fine. What I must have misread was your avalanche of bullshit that claimed that the mandatory requirement was fine and the unhealthy would not be disadvantaged because they would win their "justifiable" cases. You seem to have conveniently forgotten your earlier rants that were built on batshit bricks and now just want to change the subject.
Of course my problem was the mandatory aspect. I was very clear about that from the start. But you were arguing something completely different. Don't just adopt my position as your own in argument against me.
Don't reply to me, I can't take any more of your shit. Or do if you want, but I'm not indulging your ignorance and arrogance any more tonight.
Loser pays is used in the vast majority of western democracies. There is an excellent article here:
www.rutgerspolicyjournal.org/sites/rutgerspolicyjournal.org/files/issues/8_3/JLPP_8-3_Gryphon.pdf
Define frivolous to a benchmark that can be reasonably judged in a court.
Why not use the definition already in existence? You know, when the plaintiff, who has never used the patent, loses because the defendant was found not to have infringed upon it (or in the case of the invalidation thereof).
If you want to get really specific, define frivolous to mean that the patent was not only not in use, but did not even refer to the category of operation asserted in the filing.
If the patent is infringed, that will be found. If it was not, it will not be. Doesn’t seem like it’s too confusing a concept to grasp, really. “Doesn’t have the money to continue proving so” and “sometimes the truth isn’t followed in court” were YOUR creations, irrelevant to the topic itself–that the loser pays court costs.
Don't reply to me, I can't take any more of your shit.
If you’d just read posts before replying to them, that would solve a lot of your problems.
Wow. This country is heading into the crapper.
In our current me-myself-and-I culture it’s all about getting whatever you can get by any means. This includes corporations, CEOs, shareholders, customers, users, all of us. Don’t forget that lawyers conjure up these scenarios and then advertise for plaintiffs to “come forward.”
Bottom line? “Show me the money!”
Indeed; it's the atheist's way.