4 ms·
It is. My views on contracts and law suits changed when we got a trademark infringement suit against us. It became a function of "how much is this going to cos
by jmathai 10y ago
It is. My views on contracts and law suits changed when we got a trademark infringement suit against us.
It became a function of "how much is this going to cost us?" We ended up changing the name of our company even though we didn't think the accuser had a case. It wasn't about who was right. It was about how much money did we think they would be willing to put up because we'd have to match it.
- bambax 10y ago> we'd have to match it But how is that? Is it that the party with a lot of money can file many briefs and that the other party has to respond to them? (and what if they don't? Do they lose by default?) And could it not be fixed by limiting the number of possible briefs, by law (depending on non-hackable criteria such as, amount of damages awarded in similar cases, etc.)?
- vinceguidry 10y agoSo, if you're fighting the government, you have an advantage in that it costs the state money to enforce a judgment. The weight of precedent means that the government has to enforce laws against everybody. If what you're doing is politically sensitive, then you could find the hammer of the law dropped on you fast, but if you're in a political blind spot, then you can get away without getting slapped for a long time. Fighting the music cartel, on the other hand, that's a completely different animal. They can afford to pay big teams of lawyers to slap you silly, and keep doing it for as long as they want. If they want you out of business, they're going to find a way. Picture all the people trying to make the world a better place as a bunch of ants. Fighting the government is like fighting a bear. The bear can crush a few of you but not all of you. Fighting the music industry is like fighting a hoard of dragonflies.