3 ms·
Isn't the whole point of damages to provide compensation for damage the plaintiff incurred as a result of the defendant's actions? You've got to have a pretty
by slavak 16y ago
Isn't the whole point of damages to provide compensation for damage the plaintiff incurred as a result of the defendant's actions?
You've got to have a pretty huge set of balls to demand damages in an amount exceeding what your whole industry has made in the entire history of its existence.
- coderdude 16y agoThey have huge balls for demanding damages that exceed what anyone has ever earned in any industry in the entire history of commerce.
- pedrocr 16y agoAccording to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue The biggest oil and gas companies add up to 3.4T$ in yearly revenue. Considering they've been going for a century at least it seems feasible that they've surpassed the 75T$ mark in total. So if you owned a monopoly on the most lucrative industry on earth maybe you could actually pay off the music industry in 300 years or so[1]... [1] at Exxon Mobil's 9% net profit margin - http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AXOM http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AXOM
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- anamax 16y ago> Isn't the whole point of damages to provide compensation for damage the plaintiff incurred as a result of the defendant's actions? That's actual/compensatory damages. There are also punitive damages. > You've got to have a pretty huge set of balls to demand damages in an amount exceeding what your whole industry has made in the entire history of its existence. Not really. You just claim that they kept your biz 10x smaller than it would have been otherwise. FWIW, Jevon's effect would probably let the music industry to make 2-5x as much as it did at its peak.