3 ms·
>"it should take an exponential investment to produce a linear impact on the award" I'm not sure how we would manage that but, assuming we could, doesn't this
by unclebucknasty 10y ago
>"it should take an exponential investment to produce a linear impact on the award"
I'm not sure how we would manage that but, assuming we could, doesn't this cut both ways? As long as money is in the equation, then don't all parties still benefit by having as much money as possible?
- SilasX 10y agoNo, because (under the condition I described), the size of the award increases much slower than the investment, so it quickly becomes a losing proposition; the gain in award is exceeded by the loss in expenditures (assuming the bounds on legal costs awarded are bounded by a slower function). Under that condition, each doubling of the amount spent on influencing the outcome (via payments expert witnesses, bribes to the judge, discovery, etc) would only yield the same gain in revenues from the court. So for example, if you start with $1000, then doubling to $2000 might yield $1500, doubling to $2000 with only yield $1500 more on top of that, and so on. (I agree an exponential difference might be two hard; I'd be happy for even a quadratic difference!)
- Retra 10y agoThe problem is that a court ruling can result in exponential benefits for the victor.
- SilasX 10y agoAnd if that ruling is unwarranted, it should take double-exponential costs to get it!
- unclebucknasty 10y agoBut, what if it is warranted and who decides this?