5 ms·

Part of the problem is lack of English rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorne

by lukasm 11y ago

Part of the problem is lack of English rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fee...

chillydawg 11y ago
It's not that much better in London. Just older buildings, more wigs and less obvious corruption.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  lukasm is presumably referring to the "loser pays" aspect.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    "loser pays" does have some disadvantages though - it can actually act to prolong litigation as people will know that if they give up they will face an immediate bill for the other sides costs so they will continue in the small hope they will win.
    - lowpro 11y ago
      And lose... If they have to pay the other side if they lose, there would be a lot less lawsuits, so in the end it probably evens out in terms of strain on the legal system.
      - arethuza 11y ago
        This claims that the percentage of turnover paid on litigation costs for UK companies is actually higher than it is for US ones: http://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/law_department_management/2005/05/disadvantages_o-2.html http://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/law_department_ma... NB My wife is a specialist commercial litigation lawyer in the UK and I had discussed this issue with her after seeing it mentioned on HN and she pointed out a lot of issues with "loser pays".
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Would you mind sharing those issues your wife pointed out?
        arethuza 11y ago
        Well, it was a while ago and was probably over a shared bottle of wine... :-) It was one of those occasions where I probably made some comment about how daft the US legal situation sounded to me and she lectured me with a long list of issues with "loser pays" - as she is far brighter than I am I probably didn't quite appreciate the subtleties other than not to remind myself not to make sweeping statements about the legal system around her...
        lukasm 11y ago
        In the land of lawsuits it's worse for the poor, but that doesn't apply for patents. It's more expensive to go to court.
    - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
      Doesn't it favour the big guys, though? If I'm a mom-and-pop store and a big guy infringes on my product (for the sake or argument, let's say I have a genuinely good™ patent), were I to sue I'd face the prospect of having to pay however much money it costs them to buy the verdict. I simply would not sue in that case, even if I'd be justified in doing so.
arca_vorago 11y ago
Please clarify what you mean by this.
- Qwertious 11y ago
  English rule = loser pays winner's legal costs. If patent trolls had to pay the legal fees of the other side, if/when the other side won, then the patent trolls would be unprofitable.

by lukasm 11y ago

Part of the problem is lack of English rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fee...

chillydawg 11y ago

It's not that much better in London. Just older buildings, more wigs and less obvious corruption.

sokoloff 11y ago
lukasm is presumably referring to the "loser pays" aspect.
- arethuza 11y ago
  "loser pays" does have some disadvantages though - it can actually act to prolong litigation as people will know that if they give up they will face an immediate bill for the other sides costs so they will continue in the small hope they will win.
  - lowpro 11y ago
    And lose... If they have to pay the other side if they lose, there would be a lot less lawsuits, so in the end it probably evens out in terms of strain on the legal system.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      This claims that the percentage of turnover paid on litigation costs for UK companies is actually higher than it is for US ones: http://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/law_department_management/2005/05/disadvantages_o-2.html http://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/law_department_ma... NB My wife is a specialist commercial litigation lawyer in the UK and I had discussed this issue with her after seeing it mentioned on HN and she pointed out a lot of issues with "loser pays".
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Would you mind sharing those issues your wife pointed out?
        arethuza 11y ago
        Well, it was a while ago and was probably over a shared bottle of wine... :-) It was one of those occasions where I probably made some comment about how daft the US legal situation sounded to me and she lectured me with a long list of issues with "loser pays" - as she is far brighter than I am I probably didn't quite appreciate the subtleties other than not to remind myself not to make sweeping statements about the legal system around her...
        lukasm 11y ago
        In the land of lawsuits it's worse for the poor, but that doesn't apply for patents. It's more expensive to go to court.
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    Doesn't it favour the big guys, though? If I'm a mom-and-pop store and a big guy infringes on my product (for the sake or argument, let's say I have a genuinely good™ patent), were I to sue I'd face the prospect of having to pay however much money it costs them to buy the verdict. I simply would not sue in that case, even if I'd be justified in doing so.

arca_vorago 11y ago

Please clarify what you mean by this.

Qwertious 11y ago
English rule = loser pays winner's legal costs. If patent trolls had to pay the legal fees of the other side, if/when the other side won, then the patent trolls would be unprofitable.