5 ms·
> Since most of the plaintiffs are shell companies run by lawyers, there is little cost to them even if they loose and no value to the defendant if they win. W
by maaaats 10y ago
> Since most of the plaintiffs are shell companies run by lawyers, there is little cost to them even if they loose and no value to the defendant if they win.
Would having to deposit some kind of money up front before the case is accepted be a solution to this? Then you cannot spam-sue everybody, and if you lose you cannot just claim bankruptcy to escape having to repay the defendants' costs.
- marcosdumay 10y agoThat officially closes justice to the common people. If you are going to assume it's an extortion, just don't accept the case, or ask for evidence before calling the defendant in.
- coredog64 10y agoOther countries have loser pays and they've managed to do it without closing off justice for little people.
- marcosdumay 10y agoI don't know of any democracy that requires deposing money before you get access to a tribunal. That's not loser pays. Raising the bar into requiring evidence before the court accepts the case solves the problem. No need to invent an access to court tariff.
- redm 10y agoThe problem is really Non-Practicing Entities (NPE) who are doing the trolling. I think you have to change the laws to eliminate the ability for an NPE to buy up patents for the sole purpose of suing. It would help greatly if Judges were a bit more decerning about the cases they accept too.