3 ms·
> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability. Welcome to the legal system. Money allo
by basseq 10y ago
> I do, however, feel concerned that a rich person like Thiel can buy litigation. That's a highly dangerous capability.
Welcome to the legal system. Money allows you to mount lawsuit (frivolous or not) and mount effective defenses against them.
The problem is when there's an imbalance: when a tech giant sues a small start-up (e.g., Zynga suing over the "Saga" trademark) or when an individual elects not to sue a large organization because the costs are too high.
Thiel (and Newegg re: patent trolls, and EFF, and ALCU, and others) are evening that money balance so justice can actually be served.
Can they use this power for evil instead? Of course: and it happens every day already. That's the point.
The anti-Thiel arguments come down to: "Even though Gawker was proven guilty in a court of law, it's not fair because Hogan never should have been able to mount the lawsuit in the first place." In other words, Gawker should have won because Hogan has less money. All Thiel did is even the playing field.
If this was about freedom of the press, they would have won the lawsuit. They didn't. End of story.
- basseq 10y agoFollow up: the other argument here is that the damages awarded from the Hogan verdict shouldn't bankrupt Gawker. And that's a fair point: if total corporate annihilation is a possible outcome from publishing a story, then would the press be more leery of posting important, controversial news. Thus impacting the value of a free press. Again, valid argument (though this case is a bad example). But your quibble is with the legal system, not with Hogan or Thiel. You will also need to weigh fairness in tying damages to "ability to pay", as well as "news-worthiness" (e.g., not a sex tape).
- devishard 10y agoIn a larger context, I think corporate annihilation is something corporations should live in constant fear of.
- devishard 10y agoI agree that in this case Thiel evened the playing field, but the fundamental problem still remains. It's still highly problematic that either Thiel or Gawker can buy the law.