3 ms·

For the sake of historical accuracy, and for the sake of honest journalism, this lawsuit needs to bedecided in favor of Techdirt and to impose no financial hard

For the sake of historical accuracy, and for the sake of honest journalism, this lawsuit needs to bedecided in favor of Techdirt and to impose no financial hardship on Techdirt. Ideally, Ayyadurai would be ruined as well -- as a cautionary tale for other miscreants.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Ideally, Ayyadurai would be ruined as well Paying the other side's legal fees is enough. The problem with injecting vengeance under a veneer of deterrence into the justice system is it dissuades honest suits. The risk of being "right" but not legally correct (per the court's interpretation) becomes too great.
- qq66 9y ago
  There is plenty of good precedent for allowing countersuits in cases of frivolous litigation.
  - bsder 9y ago
    Not really. The bar is remarkably high, and judges are very reluctant to throw around substantive penalties. The real solution is to force the lawyers to bear some of the burden when they lose. As it stands, the lawyers win regardless of how good or bad their case was.
    - JoBrad 9y ago
      Wouldn't that just discourage lawyers from taking cases that might not win?
      - bsder 9y ago
        As opposed to right now where they will happily take even completely lost cases as long as they get paid? I'll take that risk, thanks. First, I'm not talking about criminal cases. I'm a firm believer that someone defending against a criminal conviction needs every single advantage they can get. The government is a well-funded, implacable enemy and you need every bit of help to fight it if you are innocent. However, I have been part of several civil cases where the judge has basically said "I have rarely seen such horrific behavior from both client and lawyer--I have no real penalty sufficient that I can impose." And this was after the lawyer was blowing off court imposed deadlines and fines. The American civil legal system is set up for "the truth is somewhere in the middle even if it skews to one side or another." When you have genuinely bad actors on one side, it can be abused very badly, and it doesn't have very good self-correction.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Ideally, Ayyadurai would be ruined as well Paying the other side's legal fees is enough. The problem with injecting vengeance under a veneer of deterrence into the justice system is it dissuades honest suits. The risk of being "right" but not legally correct (per the court's interpretation) becomes too great.

qq66 9y ago
There is plenty of good precedent for allowing countersuits in cases of frivolous litigation.
- bsder 9y ago
  Not really. The bar is remarkably high, and judges are very reluctant to throw around substantive penalties. The real solution is to force the lawyers to bear some of the burden when they lose. As it stands, the lawyers win regardless of how good or bad their case was.
  - JoBrad 9y ago
    Wouldn't that just discourage lawyers from taking cases that might not win?
    - bsder 9y ago
      As opposed to right now where they will happily take even completely lost cases as long as they get paid? I'll take that risk, thanks. First, I'm not talking about criminal cases. I'm a firm believer that someone defending against a criminal conviction needs every single advantage they can get. The government is a well-funded, implacable enemy and you need every bit of help to fight it if you are innocent. However, I have been part of several civil cases where the judge has basically said "I have rarely seen such horrific behavior from both client and lawyer--I have no real penalty sufficient that I can impose." And this was after the lawyer was blowing off court imposed deadlines and fines. The American civil legal system is set up for "the truth is somewhere in the middle even if it skews to one side or another." When you have genuinely bad actors on one side, it can be abused very badly, and it doesn't have very good self-correction.