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?).
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).
I honestly don't know why we're even talking about patents in a thread about a lawsuit over executive misconduct, but what the hell. Note that I'm onto the distraction you're attempting, but I'll go with it anyway...
The owner not using a patent does not make the lawsuit frivolous.
The defendant not infringing a patent doesn't make the lawsuit frivolous, unless if the plaintiff is aware of that and brings suits anyway. But how many of those lawsuits are there? Where the patent holding is suing a company that isn't even using their patent?
"or in the case of the invalidation of thereof" - stop trying to write like a lawyer please, this is a message board; write like a normal person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Honestly, you think this example of frivolous is a problem in the system? Where is this mountain of lawsuits where patents holders are suing companies for infringing their patents where they aren't even in the category of filing?
It isn't happening at any scale. It isn't a problem. And you're arguing to introduce loser pays costs, a massive change to the what legal costs are accounted for, in order to battle that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
My creations? The idea that sometimes court decisions don't always go the right way is my creation? The idea that making defending your property a potentially life destroying risk is a bad idea is my creation?
Yeah, jog on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If you’d just read posts before replying to them, that would solve a lot of your problems.
I'd say the same to you, but your problem isn't just with reading, it's with comprehension. You don't.
Maybe if you did, you wouldn't be talking about patents in a thread and conversation unrelated to patents.
Justice is the poor person suing being saddled with a mountain of debt...
Oh please, just stop with your disingenuous 'appeal to the masses'. What about the children? Or the spotted owls? At least work up some tears or use a little lemon juice in the eye and actually make an effort to convince us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
...because Tex Richman's army of lawyers were able to overwhelm the case that the legal aid lawyer could bring?
Rich vs. poor again. *YAWN!*You know that US courts don't appoint attorneys for civil lawsuits, right? Oops, did I catch you getting your info from legal/crime dramas on imported American TV? Also, those are criminal cases, and sometimes "events shown are reenactments of events, the individuals depicted are actors, not the actual suspects."
Now feel the full wrath and total shame of defeat by wikihow!
redefiler guest stars and teaches Crowley another lesson by secretly replacing his wallpaper with a screenshot of his desktop, then hides all his files after disabling auto-launch of the dock. Hilarity ensues.
So they want to sue Apple as shareholders for financial losses, by causing more financial losses by suing them! And that helps shareholders how, by more financial losses??? Financial trolls!
So they want to sue Apple as shareholders for financial losses, by causing more financial losses by suing them! And that helps shareholders how, by more financial losses??? Financial trolls!
It's not a financial loss for the shareholders if the shareholders get compensation. Y'see, shareholders from the outside don't care about Apple's health beyond the payout for them. They can see Apple's huge cash pile and they want it for themselves by any means necessary. They seem to be targeting certain board members and Cook. If the motive isn't financial at the moment, it could be to replace the senior members holding Apple's cash pile secure. These parasites talk about lost revenue and innovation as if they have any idea what it takes to make a successful company. That's not to say what Apple did was right but the effect was on the staff, the companies named are doing better than ever financially. I think we're going to see more shareholder activism the longer that Apple's cash pile remains intact.
Oh please, just stop with your disingenuous 'appeal to the masses'. What about the children? Or the spotted owls? At least work up some tears or use a little lemon juice in the eye and actually make an effort to convince us.
I'm sorry you're so unsympathetic, but somehow I don't think tears would make the slightest bit of difference.
I'm not being disingenuous. Barriers to the legal system to people without wealth is a serious issue, and I've worked in this area, so I will react strongly to people who casually suggest making the system worse.
Sorry for boring you in the space of a few posts, but I would suggest that yawning would be symptomatic of your callousness rather than any weakness in my argument.
You know that US courts don't appoint attorneys for civil lawsuits, right?
Of course I do. Court appointed attorneys on both sides would actually level the playing field a fair amount, so I don't know why you think I would believe that.
Oops, did I catch you getting your info from legal/crime dramas on imported American TV?
Nope. I've seen some, but I'm talking from a position of reason, and have barely mentioned specifics, so I don't understand why you'd make such a left field accusation.
Also, those are criminal cases, and sometimes "events shown are reenactments of events, the individuals depicted are actors, not the actual suspects."
:smokey:
I genuinely don't understand the relevance. I fully grok the concept of court appointed attorneys and legal aid. I've referenced them directly or indirectly at least once.
[quote]I'm not being disingenuous. Barriers to the legal system to people without wealth is a serious issue, and I've worked in this area, so I will react strongly to people who casually suggest making the system worse.[/quote]
That's a stupid statement because you've got nothing to back it up. I call total bs, you pinned on that little toy "defender of the poor" sheriff star on all by yourself, then made repeated attempts to use it as moral authority. People who are charitable and give real time and resources to the poor, generally don't flaunt it on computer forums, its kind of a glaring character contradiction. It sounds like you're missing some context and specifics of US class action situations, while sprinkling in a few wishy-washy nuggets of political pamphlet quality rhetoric.
[quote]Sorry for boring you in the space of a few posts, but I would suggest that yawning would be symptomatic of your callousness rather than any weakness in my argument.[/quote]
Under laboratory tests it's been concluded that my yawning is a direct result of your repetitions. Rich vs. poor, righteous crusader, blah blah blah... so sleepy...
[quote]Court appointed attorneys on both sides would actually level the playing field a fair amount, so I don't know why you think I would believe that.[/quote]
Court appointed attorneys don't "level a playing field". That would only "[B]randomize[/B] the playing field", nothing is even close to leveled. :rolleyes: You want legal representation to be determined by the quality of the random government employee selected to represent you? That is an idiotic idea, Wheel of Fortune lawyers, no equality or justice, just random chance. Derp.
Don't think the quality of appointed lawyers would kinda vary greatly by court location? Or are you in some weird collectivist freetard fantasy where the government has already seized all assets and created a perfectly uniform, indistinct, resource equalized utopia from Beverley Hills to Oklahoma? Also for example, homosexuals in a certain state, might not get fair representation with court appointed lawyers because of local institutionalized biases. This also would work the same on your little isle, just ask the Irish or the Scotish, and that's just when the vast majority of y'all look the same.
So you're "lecturing, correcting and parenting me", yet I'm the "holier than thou" one?
I'm not sure where you've picked up this self-righteousness from, or any kind of "flaunting", other people were just having a debate that didn't involve you, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, hence your argument veering around all over the place in your haste to decry me.
Can't be bothered with that thanks. You disagree? Fine. You don't strike me as someone worth arguing with.
P.S. I wasn't actually making a serious argument for court-appointed attorneys. You brought that chestnut up.
So you're "lecturing, correcting and parenting me", yet I'm the "holier than thou" one?
Once you started using your phony concern/experience for the poor as discussion teflon, it seems like you needed a correction. I don't need to be Ghandi for that. Now you're crying about not being able to bully a discussion in the name of charity? Weak bro.
Quote:
I'm not sure where you've picked up this self-righteousness from, or any kind of "flaunting", other people were just having a debate that didn't involve you, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, hence your argument veering around all over the place in your haste to decry me.
You're the discussion gatekeeper? Veering? That's because once I destroyed your point, you tried to weasel out with more chaff, and once that also got destroyed, now it's the water works and tear show.
Quote:
You disagree? Fine. You don't strike me as someone worth arguing with.
Nice spin try, what you posted in indefensible, and you never had an argument, just an "i'm so charitable' bluff.
Quote:
P.S. I wasn't actually making a serious argument for court-appointed attorneys. You brought that chestnut up.
BS. You interjected the poor and whined about the quality of legal aid lawyers into class action lawsuit reform. Then went to step 2 and started calling people 'callous' for disagreeing with your position as 'holy shepherd of the underprivileged '. Pretty nervy, but absolutely vile.
But OK, suuuuure.... after you've been called out, now you weren't serious. It's not all bad though, I will cherish your idiotic recommendation of 'leveling' a hypothetical playing field by 'randomization'. Since it appears emoticons are offline right now, I'll leave you with this instead of the regular smokey. Enjoy!
You started being rude, you ended being rude, you didn't have any point throughout while my point was clear from the outset, you've just been on the personal attack.
I neither "whined" not "cried" nor "bullied" (seriously? I bullied people while crying? Weirdest bullying ever) at any point, while your posting has just been nothing but moaning about me, and not addressing anything I've said, just a made up argument about randomisation of lawyers and the notion of court-appointed attorneys (never once mentioned by me until after you brought it up).
No further replies will be forthcoming. Not worth the trouble. And Blocked, for idiocy and incivility.
You started being rude, you ended being rude, you didn't have any point throughout while my point was clear from the outset, you've just been on the personal attack.
'Holier than thou' again? *yawn*
Quote:
I neither "whined" not "cried" nor "bullied" (seriously? I bullied people while crying? Weirdest bullying ever) at any point, while your posting has just been nothing but moaning about me, and not addressing anything I've said, just a made up argument about randomisation of lawyers.
One of the main distinguishing characteristics of bullies is that they cry harder than their victims after being challenged back, and suddenly start to moan about fairness.
You challenged loser pays reform with what exactly? Oh that's right, your vague, silly point about 'oh teh poors!' After your whole idea of poor people and their involvement in class action lawsuits was questioned, you spout that court-appointed lawyers 'level the playing field', yet bone it by not realizing your idea is nowhere near the concept of leveling, but merely randomization. Thats pretty stupid, but hey, you own it now.
Quote:
No further replies will be forthcoming. Not worth the trouble.
Awesome. You've been writing about quitting for three posts now, apparently no effort there either. BTW... loser pays. For your convenience, you can send the cash to me thru Paypal.
Comments
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.
Cretinous remark. Requiring the losers to pay costs is fairer than the current system. It would weed out all these dubious cases.
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.
Thank goodness; you won't be missed.
I can see how this anti-poaching law hurts employees and is unethical but I don't see how it hurts shareholders.
"Some for me, please!"
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).
I honestly don't know why we're even talking about patents in a thread about a lawsuit over executive misconduct, but what the hell. Note that I'm onto the distraction you're attempting, but I'll go with it anyway...
The owner not using a patent does not make the lawsuit frivolous.
The defendant not infringing a patent doesn't make the lawsuit frivolous, unless if the plaintiff is aware of that and brings suits anyway. But how many of those lawsuits are there? Where the patent holding is suing a company that isn't even using their patent?
"or in the case of the invalidation of thereof" - stop trying to write like a lawyer please, this is a message board; write like a normal person.
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.
Honestly, you think this example of frivolous is a problem in the system? Where is this mountain of lawsuits where patents holders are suing companies for infringing their patents where they aren't even in the category of filing?
It isn't happening at any scale. It isn't a problem. And you're arguing to introduce loser pays costs, a massive change to the what legal costs are accounted for, in order to battle that?
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.
My creations? The idea that sometimes court decisions don't always go the right way is my creation? The idea that making defending your property a potentially life destroying risk is a bad idea is my creation?
Yeah, jog on.
If you’d just read posts before replying to them, that would solve a lot of your problems.
I'd say the same to you, but your problem isn't just with reading, it's with comprehension. You don't.
Maybe if you did, you wouldn't be talking about patents in a thread and conversation unrelated to patents.
Justice is the poor person suing being saddled with a mountain of debt...
Oh please, just stop with your disingenuous 'appeal to the masses'. What about the children? Or the spotted owls? At least work up some tears or use a little lemon juice in the eye and actually make an effort to convince us.
...because Tex Richman's army of lawyers were able to overwhelm the case that the legal aid lawyer could bring?
Rich vs. poor again. *YAWN!* You know that US courts don't appoint attorneys for civil lawsuits, right? Oops, did I catch you getting your info from legal/crime dramas on imported American TV? Also, those are criminal cases, and sometimes "events shown are reenactments of events, the individuals depicted are actors, not the actual suspects."
Now feel the full wrath and total shame of defeat by wikihow!
http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Court-Appointed-Attorney
Next week on "Law & Order"
redefiler guest stars and teaches Crowley another lesson by secretly replacing his wallpaper with a screenshot of his desktop, then hides all his files after disabling auto-launch of the dock. Hilarity ensues.
It's not a financial loss for the shareholders if the shareholders get compensation. Y'see, shareholders from the outside don't care about Apple's health beyond the payout for them. They can see Apple's huge cash pile and they want it for themselves by any means necessary. They seem to be targeting certain board members and Cook. If the motive isn't financial at the moment, it could be to replace the senior members holding Apple's cash pile secure. These parasites talk about lost revenue and innovation as if they have any idea what it takes to make a successful company. That's not to say what Apple did was right but the effect was on the staff, the companies named are doing better than ever financially. I think we're going to see more shareholder activism the longer that Apple's cash pile remains intact.
I'm not being disingenuous. Barriers to the legal system to people without wealth is a serious issue, and I've worked in this area, so I will react strongly to people who casually suggest making the system worse.
Sorry for boring you in the space of a few posts, but I would suggest that yawning would be symptomatic of your callousness rather than any weakness in my argument.
Of course I do. Court appointed attorneys on both sides would actually level the playing field a fair amount, so I don't know why you think I would believe that.
Nope. I've seen some, but I'm talking from a position of reason, and have barely mentioned specifics, so I don't understand why you'd make such a left field accusation.
Err... Ok? Your point?
I genuinely don't understand the relevance. I fully grok the concept of court appointed attorneys and legal aid. I've referenced them directly or indirectly at least once.
I'm not sure you've understood the argument.
That's a stupid statement because you've got nothing to back it up. I call total bs, you pinned on that little toy "defender of the poor" sheriff star on all by yourself, then made repeated attempts to use it as moral authority. People who are charitable and give real time and resources to the poor, generally don't flaunt it on computer forums, its kind of a glaring character contradiction. It sounds like you're missing some context and specifics of US class action situations, while sprinkling in a few wishy-washy nuggets of political pamphlet quality rhetoric.
[quote]Sorry for boring you in the space of a few posts, but I would suggest that yawning would be symptomatic of your callousness rather than any weakness in my argument.[/quote]
Under laboratory tests it's been concluded that my yawning is a direct result of your repetitions. Rich vs. poor, righteous crusader, blah blah blah... so sleepy...
[quote]Court appointed attorneys on both sides would actually level the playing field a fair amount, so I don't know why you think I would believe that.[/quote]
Court appointed attorneys don't "level a playing field". That would only "[B]randomize[/B] the playing field", nothing is even close to leveled. :rolleyes: You want legal representation to be determined by the quality of the random government employee selected to represent you? That is an idiotic idea, Wheel of Fortune lawyers, no equality or justice, just random chance. Derp.
Don't think the quality of appointed lawyers would kinda vary greatly by court location? Or are you in some weird collectivist freetard fantasy where the government has already seized all assets and created a perfectly uniform, indistinct, resource equalized utopia from Beverley Hills to Oklahoma? Also for example, homosexuals in a certain state, might not get fair representation with court appointed lawyers because of local institutionalized biases. This also would work the same on your little isle, just ask the Irish or the Scotish, and that's just when the vast majority of y'all look the same.
So you're "lecturing, correcting and parenting me", yet I'm the "holier than thou" one?
I'm not sure where you've picked up this self-righteousness from, or any kind of "flaunting", other people were just having a debate that didn't involve you, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, hence your argument veering around all over the place in your haste to decry me.
Can't be bothered with that thanks. You disagree? Fine. You don't strike me as someone worth arguing with.
P.S. I wasn't actually making a serious argument for court-appointed attorneys. You brought that chestnut up.
Since stockholders will eventually receive paperwork soliciting them to join the suit, simply ignore the notice.
So you're "lecturing, correcting and parenting me", yet I'm the "holier than thou" one?
Once you started using your phony concern/experience for the poor as discussion teflon, it seems like you needed a correction. I don't need to be Ghandi for that. Now you're crying about not being able to bully a discussion in the name of charity? Weak bro.
I'm not sure where you've picked up this self-righteousness from, or any kind of "flaunting", other people were just having a debate that didn't involve you, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, hence your argument veering around all over the place in your haste to decry me.
You're the discussion gatekeeper? Veering? That's because once I destroyed your point, you tried to weasel out with more chaff, and once that also got destroyed, now it's the water works and tear show.
You disagree? Fine. You don't strike me as someone worth arguing with.
Nice spin try, what you posted in indefensible, and you never had an argument, just an "i'm so charitable' bluff.
P.S. I wasn't actually making a serious argument for court-appointed attorneys. You brought that chestnut up.
BS. You interjected the poor and whined about the quality of legal aid lawyers into class action lawsuit reform. Then went to step 2 and started calling people 'callous' for disagreeing with your position as 'holy shepherd of the underprivileged '. Pretty nervy, but absolutely vile.
But OK, suuuuure.... after you've been called out, now you weren't serious. It's not all bad though, I will cherish your idiotic recommendation of 'leveling' a hypothetical playing field by 'randomization'. Since it appears emoticons are offline right now, I'll leave you with this instead of the regular smokey. Enjoy!
You started being rude, you ended being rude, you didn't have any point throughout while my point was clear from the outset, you've just been on the personal attack.
I neither "whined" not "cried" nor "bullied" (seriously? I bullied people while crying? Weirdest bullying ever) at any point, while your posting has just been nothing but moaning about me, and not addressing anything I've said, just a made up argument about randomisation of lawyers and the notion of court-appointed attorneys (never once mentioned by me until after you brought it up).
No further replies will be forthcoming. Not worth the trouble. And Blocked, for idiocy and incivility.
*YAWN*
You started being rude, you ended being rude, you didn't have any point throughout while my point was clear from the outset, you've just been on the personal attack.
'Holier than thou' again? *yawn*
I neither "whined" not "cried" nor "bullied" (seriously? I bullied people while crying? Weirdest bullying ever) at any point, while your posting has just been nothing but moaning about me, and not addressing anything I've said, just a made up argument about randomisation of lawyers.
One of the main distinguishing characteristics of bullies is that they cry harder than their victims after being challenged back, and suddenly start to moan about fairness.
You challenged loser pays reform with what exactly? Oh that's right, your vague, silly point about 'oh teh poors!' After your whole idea of poor people and their involvement in class action lawsuits was questioned, you spout that court-appointed lawyers 'level the playing field', yet bone it by not realizing your idea is nowhere near the concept of leveling, but merely randomization. Thats pretty stupid, but hey, you own it now.
No further replies will be forthcoming. Not worth the trouble.
Awesome. You've been writing about quitting for three posts now, apparently no effort there either. BTW... loser pays. For your convenience, you can send the cash to me thru Paypal.