4 ms·
Whether that's true or not, I don't think it's enough to rely on the invisible hand to squelch this practice. The truth is, as long as it is advantageous to sue
by tbabb 10y ago
Whether that's true or not, I don't think it's enough to rely on the invisible hand to squelch this practice. The truth is, as long as it is advantageous to sue frivolously, companies will do it. And this is bad for the free market, the economy, and consumers.
Policy change should make it much more costly to launch a frivolous lawsuit (as distinct from a claim made in good faith), e.g. by making it much easier for a bullied defendant to counter-sue and win significant damages.
- ethbro 10y agoSimilar to the email spam proposals, charge a modest fee for each motion filed. Set it at a point that isn't a barrier for anyone filing a "normal" amount of motions, but where it increases to real money if your main business is filing large amounts of know-it-will-fail paperwork.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sirclueless 10y agoFiling motions is not their main business. Their main business is putting down competitors. In fact the only reason it works is that they have enough revenue that they can retain lawyers (expensive) to do these things without affecting their bottom line much. Lawyers aren't cheap for Acushnet either, they just have the cash to throw around. Adding fees just hurts small players more. This sounds like a "solution" that makes the problem worse.
- vxNsr 10y agoHow did this work?