6 ms·

This is wrong. It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money. Perhaps courts should impose spending caps similarly to some sports l

This is wrong. It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money. Perhaps courts should impose spending caps similarly to some sports leagues.

nickff 6y ago
> It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money. This also applies to criminal cases filed by government lawyers, who file many more lawsuits, with far harsher results than Apple. If this lawsuit is problematic (and I would agree that it is), government prosecutions are much worse.
- mathieuh 6y ago
  Isn't it expected that the government is acting in society's interest though? Whether or not that is the case in reality, bringing up the fact that the government has greater resources than citizens like this feels like it's missing the point, and that the actual problem is in how the government is deciding what cases to prosecute.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    It is a problem. The defendant's right to counsel should be the right to counsel that is, at least in theory, equipped with the same tools as the prosecutor. When there are huge power disparities, governments become mobs. See: Aaron Swartz.
    - nickff 6y ago
      There are always huge disparities; a large number (possibly a majority) of people prosecuted by the government are driven to bankrupcy, regardless of the outcome.
      - the8472 6y ago
        If the government can afford a crime lab, expert witnesses and a team of prosecutors then why not the equal amount for public defense? Then they can do a cost-benefit analysis whether it's really worth to indict someone even though they have to pay for their defense. It's essentially the problem of only optimizing to keep false negatives low but ignoring false positives.
        eagsalazar2 6y ago
        This should be mandated for all litigation - both sides must split any funds used in the case equally, otherwise by definition it isn't a fair trial. This is one of many many ways the American justice system is completely corrupt (not singling out US, this is just where I live and what I know)
        mindfulhack 6y ago
        How on earth could you easily enforce that though? Easy to quietly pay some private investigator or specialist to do some expensive or hard work in evidence gathering or analysis, and then pretend it was easier and cheaper to do than it really was. I agree that on principle it should be a rule though, so yes, absolutely agree.
        cutemonster 6y ago
        At least that'd be some extra steps they'd need to take and a little bit risky for them
        eagsalazar2 6y ago
        Yeah people could and would cheat but there are already similar laws about hiding evidence. It would be better, not perfect. Way better.
        afiori 6y ago
        Honestly this feels like painting a tomb, sure there is a new shiny look but it did nothing for the rotten inside.
    - Retric 6y ago
      Government prosecutors tend to have a very limited interest in any one case. Generally speaking if they put up any kind of fight it’s the defense that’s willing to outspend the prosecution due to the incentives involved. That said, the overwhelming majority of defendants chose not to defend themselves.
- breck 6y ago
  You do have the right to a court appointed attorney for criminal cases, though, right? I’m not arguing that that is sufficient at all, I’m just ignorant of the basics. My understanding is for criminal cases, you can opt for a free public defender, but not for civil cases. Or am I incorrect?
  - nickff 6y ago
    I do not believe that there is a right to a public defender, though they are often available. There is no corresponding right in civil cases, and the government files many of those as well.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      Sixth Amendment provides right to counsel for criminal prosecutions. It's the rare positive right - if you do not have lawyer, or cannot afford one, the state will provide one. (Generally an overworked, underpaid one...)
      - nickff 6y ago
        Not for all criminal prosecutions it seems; only felonies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel#United_States
      - refurb 6y ago
        Random anecdote - I sat as a juror on a felony trial where the defendant was represented by a public defender. Before it started I pictured a bumbling public defender with bags under their eyes from lack of sleep. I was surprised when the public defender ran circles around the prosecutor. It was actually the prosecutor who I had some sympathy for. She seemed overworked and unprepared. Albeit it was a big case for the city, so I assume the public defenders office decided it was a case worth winning, but damn, that changed my opinion of public defenders.
        Zhenya 6y ago
ummonk 6y ago
This isn't a legal case. It's a trademark application.
- eagsalazar2 6y ago
  The point is it will become one if they try and fight.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

This is wrong. It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money. Perhaps courts should impose spending caps similarly to some sports leagues.

nickff 6y ago

> It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money. This also applies to criminal cases filed by government lawyers, who file many more lawsuits, with far harsher results than Apple. If this lawsuit is problematic (and I would agree that it is), government prosecutions are much worse.

mathieuh 6y ago
Isn't it expected that the government is acting in society's interest though? Whether or not that is the case in reality, bringing up the fact that the government has greater resources than citizens like this feels like it's missing the point, and that the actual problem is in how the government is deciding what cases to prosecute.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  It is a problem. The defendant's right to counsel should be the right to counsel that is, at least in theory, equipped with the same tools as the prosecutor. When there are huge power disparities, governments become mobs. See: Aaron Swartz.
  - nickff 6y ago
    There are always huge disparities; a large number (possibly a majority) of people prosecuted by the government are driven to bankrupcy, regardless of the outcome.
    - the8472 6y ago
      If the government can afford a crime lab, expert witnesses and a team of prosecutors then why not the equal amount for public defense? Then they can do a cost-benefit analysis whether it's really worth to indict someone even though they have to pay for their defense. It's essentially the problem of only optimizing to keep false negatives low but ignoring false positives.
      - eagsalazar2 6y ago
        This should be mandated for all litigation - both sides must split any funds used in the case equally, otherwise by definition it isn't a fair trial. This is one of many many ways the American justice system is completely corrupt (not singling out US, this is just where I live and what I know)
        mindfulhack 6y ago
        How on earth could you easily enforce that though? Easy to quietly pay some private investigator or specialist to do some expensive or hard work in evidence gathering or analysis, and then pretend it was easier and cheaper to do than it really was. I agree that on principle it should be a rule though, so yes, absolutely agree.
        cutemonster 6y ago
        At least that'd be some extra steps they'd need to take and a little bit risky for them
        eagsalazar2 6y ago
        Yeah people could and would cheat but there are already similar laws about hiding evidence. It would be better, not perfect. Way better.
        afiori 6y ago
        Honestly this feels like painting a tomb, sure there is a new shiny look but it did nothing for the rotten inside.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Government prosecutors tend to have a very limited interest in any one case. Generally speaking if they put up any kind of fight it’s the defense that’s willing to outspend the prosecution due to the incentives involved. That said, the overwhelming majority of defendants chose not to defend themselves.
breck 6y ago
You do have the right to a court appointed attorney for criminal cases, though, right? I’m not arguing that that is sufficient at all, I’m just ignorant of the basics. My understanding is for criminal cases, you can opt for a free public defender, but not for civil cases. Or am I incorrect?
- nickff 6y ago
  I do not believe that there is a right to a public defender, though they are often available. There is no corresponding right in civil cases, and the government files many of those as well.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Sixth Amendment provides right to counsel for criminal prosecutions. It's the rare positive right - if you do not have lawyer, or cannot afford one, the state will provide one. (Generally an overworked, underpaid one...)
    - nickff 6y ago
      Not for all criminal prosecutions it seems; only felonies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel#United_States
    - refurb 6y ago
      Random anecdote - I sat as a juror on a felony trial where the defendant was represented by a public defender. Before it started I pictured a bumbling public defender with bags under their eyes from lack of sleep. I was surprised when the public defender ran circles around the prosecutor. It was actually the prosecutor who I had some sympathy for. She seemed overworked and unprepared. Albeit it was a big case for the city, so I assume the public defenders office decided it was a case worth winning, but damn, that changed my opinion of public defenders.
      - Zhenya 6y ago

ummonk 6y ago

This isn't a legal case. It's a trademark application.

eagsalazar2 6y ago
The point is it will become one if they try and fight.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]