3 ms·

You're not wrong. I'm just responding to someone who's asking about theory, and I'm explaining why the courts work the way they do. They do have to balance the

by ikeboy 6y ago

You're not wrong. I'm just responding to someone who's asking about theory, and I'm explaining why the courts work the way they do. They do have to balance the cost to the parties of litigation with the right of people to get justice. Note that if a case is deemed frivolous, costs can be awarded to the defendant, and some kinds of meritless cases can result in fee awards even if they aren't meritless (see e.g. anti-slapp.)

catalogia 6y ago
Having your legal fees covered is a good start, but it can't give you back time wasted, or take back the gray hairs. I think it's fairly safe to say that our system doesn't go far enough to protect individuals in legal battles with corporations, for whom the process is far less stressful.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  What reform could you propose that solves this? The flip side is that anything you do to increase payouts also increases the number of suits brought, which is less efficient. Any policy regarding the legal system ends up hurting some group and creating some inefficiencies, and it's a matter of trying to make sure the incentives you create lead to more benefits than harm.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    I wouldn't claim to have all the answers, but I think much harsher penalties for SLAPP stuff should be considered. Corporate lawyers should be required to have some real skin in the game, so perhaps flogging [and disbarring] the lawyers that made the lawsuit possible. If lawyers started getting flogged for their 'mistakes' I think they'd exercise a bit more discretion about the sort of lawsuits they choose to participate in. > The flip side is that anything you do to increase payouts also increases the number of suits brought So if we flog lawyers for SLAPP suits, they'd do it more often? I have doubts about that; we should put that theory to the test.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      >So if we flog lawyers for SLAPP suits, they'd do it more often? You'd certainly have an increase in the number of frivolous anti-SLAPP motions. Very related: I've been hit with a frivolous anti-SLAPP when suing a company that made a false accusation of counterfeiting against my Amazon account. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16562550/thimes-solutions-inc-v-tp-link-usa-corporation/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16562550/thimes-solutio... (can download the PDFs free at https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/2153/ https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/2153/ - feel free to contact me for all the case documents if you want.) TP-Link is arguing that they have a 1st Amendment right to tell Amazon that someone is counterfeiting, even if untrue. They cite Noerr Pennington, which is a 1st Amendment doctrine. And this is a quote from their brief: >Courts have found that the litigation privilege applies “regardless whether the communication was made with malice or the intent to harm.” The anti-SLAPP was quickly denied. But the fact they brought it at all should show how this could get abused. Someone less confident than me might have dropped the case rather than risk having to pay legal fees if the motion was granted. And note that in a similar case against TP-Link, the anti-slapp motion was granted - that decision is up for reconsideration now, but the other side is asking for around 123k in fees. (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14522683/tp-link-usa-corporation-v-careful-shopper-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14522683/tp-link-usa-co...) It is my own personal, non-lawyer opinion that the anti-SLAPP motion in the careful shopper case was granted improperly. You can disagree; clearly a federal judge disagreed. So, in this context: do you think that lawsuit (or actually, it's the counterclaims that were subject to anti-SLAPP, so the counterclaims) should not have been brought? The brief facts of the case: TP-Link filed complaints to Amazon saying careful shopper was counterfeiting, got their account shut down, careful shopper sues for defamation and similar claims saying it was false and TP-Link knew it was false, TP-Link files anti-SLAPP saying even if this is true, they have free speech rights to say this to Amazon.

by ikeboy 6y ago

catalogia 6y ago

Having your legal fees covered is a good start, but it can't give you back time wasted, or take back the gray hairs. I think it's fairly safe to say that our system doesn't go far enough to protect individuals in legal battles with corporations, for whom the process is far less stressful.

ikeboy 6y ago
What reform could you propose that solves this? The flip side is that anything you do to increase payouts also increases the number of suits brought, which is less efficient. Any policy regarding the legal system ends up hurting some group and creating some inefficiencies, and it's a matter of trying to make sure the incentives you create lead to more benefits than harm.
- catalogia 6y ago
  I wouldn't claim to have all the answers, but I think much harsher penalties for SLAPP stuff should be considered. Corporate lawyers should be required to have some real skin in the game, so perhaps flogging [and disbarring] the lawyers that made the lawsuit possible. If lawyers started getting flogged for their 'mistakes' I think they'd exercise a bit more discretion about the sort of lawsuits they choose to participate in. > The flip side is that anything you do to increase payouts also increases the number of suits brought So if we flog lawyers for SLAPP suits, they'd do it more often? I have doubts about that; we should put that theory to the test.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    >So if we flog lawyers for SLAPP suits, they'd do it more often? You'd certainly have an increase in the number of frivolous anti-SLAPP motions. Very related: I've been hit with a frivolous anti-SLAPP when suing a company that made a false accusation of counterfeiting against my Amazon account. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16562550/thimes-solutions-inc-v-tp-link-usa-corporation/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16562550/thimes-solutio... (can download the PDFs free at https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/2153/ https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/2153/ - feel free to contact me for all the case documents if you want.) TP-Link is arguing that they have a 1st Amendment right to tell Amazon that someone is counterfeiting, even if untrue. They cite Noerr Pennington, which is a 1st Amendment doctrine. And this is a quote from their brief: >Courts have found that the litigation privilege applies “regardless whether the communication was made with malice or the intent to harm.” The anti-SLAPP was quickly denied. But the fact they brought it at all should show how this could get abused. Someone less confident than me might have dropped the case rather than risk having to pay legal fees if the motion was granted. And note that in a similar case against TP-Link, the anti-slapp motion was granted - that decision is up for reconsideration now, but the other side is asking for around 123k in fees. (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14522683/tp-link-usa-corporation-v-careful-shopper-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14522683/tp-link-usa-co...) It is my own personal, non-lawyer opinion that the anti-SLAPP motion in the careful shopper case was granted improperly. You can disagree; clearly a federal judge disagreed. So, in this context: do you think that lawsuit (or actually, it's the counterclaims that were subject to anti-SLAPP, so the counterclaims) should not have been brought? The brief facts of the case: TP-Link filed complaints to Amazon saying careful shopper was counterfeiting, got their account shut down, careful shopper sues for defamation and similar claims saying it was false and TP-Link knew it was false, TP-Link files anti-SLAPP saying even if this is true, they have free speech rights to say this to Amazon.