6 ms·

> but would drain us in a legal battle we could never afford Can someone explain how does that work?

by pier25 6y ago

quercusa 6y ago
Twitter has lots of money to spend on lawyers; he didn't. (The US does not have a 'loser pays' legal system.)
- steego 6y ago
  We get that. He’s asking for someone to explain how the legal system allows a big business to force a smaller business to spend money on legal fees. Also, how do other countries protect the little guy from frivolous lawsuits?
  - stormdennis 6y ago
    I'm thinking of the Mclibel lawsuit. McDonald's couldn't scare their defendants off because they were "men of straw".
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
    - not2b 6y ago
      The UK is far worse than the US when it comes to libel law: if a big company sues, the burden of proof is on the individual sued to document every statement. In the US, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the statements were false and damaging.
      - paulpauper 6y ago
        yeah, but is is much harder for plaintiffs to collect in the UK than in the US. Losing a lawsuit in the UK is not nearly as bad as losing one in the US because the Uk has really crappy asset recovery procedures. The US requires losers to disclose everything under the penalty of perjury.
        Aerroon 6y ago
        It might be more difficult to collect, but there is an undue burden on the individual when the court tries to determine the truth of the matter.
  - pier25 6y ago
    Exactly, thanks.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    Well, in Germany the solution is the standard rate for lawyers. When you loose a court case, you do have to pay the loosers costs. But only the hours they spent in court or drafting actual legal documents related to the case, no the lunch break where the lawyer bought ice cream. There is also a limit in discovery, so you can't drag court cases on forever as you want. So even if you, as a small SMB, get sued by Twitter, and you only bring your off-the-street lawyer and Twitter brings their 12-headed star team of lawyers, you won't pay more than double your lawyer's bill if you loose in terms of legal fees.
- simias 6y ago
  >The US does not have a 'loser pays' legal system. Even if it had, you'd still have to manage to stay afloat all the way to the verdict. It wouldn't be hard for powerful entities to let the process drag long enough to sink you in fees, even if you could hope to get it all back eventually. And that would be a very risky bet too, would you bet a few millions against a, say, 95% chance that you'll get that pear logo or that "scoper" trademark? That's a 5% chance of losing and going bankrupt. The only solution is for the process itself to be cheaper. The system shouldn't allow big players to bully small ones.
  - namibj 6y ago
    The point is, that Apple/Twitter wouldn't have that incentive to go into a battle with 5% chance of acquiring that trademark and 95% chance of being out a couple million.
    - simias 6y ago
      Not so sure honestly, because the real equation would be more like "90% chances that the smaller company won't challenge it, 10% that it will even reach a verdict". After all with the current system if it goes to court Apple/Twitter will probably have to pay a few millions for their own legal fees. Having them reimburse the other party if it goes all the way and they lose will make it even more expensive, but I don't know if it'll be enough to really change their mentality.
wldcordeiro 6y ago
You as an individual or a small company being built off the savings of an individual cannot afford the myriad of legal fees associated with the process the large corporation is putting you through. It's really not hard to understand how a company with billions in the bank can literally just "war of attrition" you into losing any case, even ones they have no standing to win.
- pier25 6y ago
  But doesn't the state provide a free lawyer to anyone that needs one? (if that's not obvious, I'm not from the US btw)
  - astura 6y ago
    Not in civil cases, only criminal
  - ummonk 6y ago
    Not for civil cases. But again for something like this I don't see why you would rather drop the issue and capitulate rather than at least try to fight it out without a lawyer.
    - sowbug 6y ago
      To "fight it out without a lawyer" runs the risk of the court resolving the case against you and awarding damages, most pathetically via entry of default judgment if you can't even figure out how to properly file an initial response to the complaint. Not to mention your own time likely being better spent elsewhere.
  - paulpauper 6y ago
    that only applies for criminal cases, not civil
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
gundmc 6y ago
Lawyers are expensive. Court cases take a very long time. It doesn't matter if you win the judgment if you run out of money in the process.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Why do I have to pay anything just for getting sued? The other party should make the case that I infringed on their rights. If I'm sure I'm in the clear, why do I have to move even just my pinky finger? What fees do I have to pay? I don't care about the process, don't want to submit anything. Is there a fee for getting sued? As far as I understand, the problem in America is that nonaction is often assumed to be an admission of guilt. But "actions" often cost money, or can only be legally performed by lawyers who take insane hourly wages. Crazy system.
  - ficklepickle 6y ago
    Based on the legal TV shows I've seen, you can get drowned by motions. If the other side files a motion, you have to respond to it. If they have a large legal team, they can pull more legal manoeuvres than your side can even read, let alone respond to.
  - tossthere 6y ago
    Yep! Lawyers basically just look for legal entities with money, and exploit the justice system to take as much of it as they can without bankrupting the source. Constant flow. They’re like a tax paid by every person or company with a significant sum of money in America. Doesn’t matter if they’re right or wrong, grounds or no grounds, there will still be a team of lawyers on your side taking your money to “defend” you. Does your lawyer’s $20,000 motion really have any chance of succeeding? Did he really have to pay that company $12,000 to convert all your files to TIFFs? Did he really spend 16 hours on that letter, or does he have 95% of it saved in a template somewhere? At first you’re happy to have lawyers on your side. But eventually you realize even the ones defending you are in on the same game, and are just there to rob you. Don’t ever tell anyone you have money or that your company is successful.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
porknubbins 6y ago
I think the part of the answer is that in the US legal system the discovery process is disproportionately expansive and expensive, being adversarial in nature, as opposed to many civil law countries where the judge tells both parties what documents they will have to produce so that the judge can rule. Here you argue with each other why you both need to review 100k or millions of results of keyword searches. Actually an individual or very small company litigant would be at an advantage not having much in the way of records to search.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  I don't think it is as simple as civil vs common law differences. The fact that legal professionals charge so much money for glorified word processing and petty arguing is the problem. Especially given the over supply of legal graduates and ever lower quality of judges you will face.
bdcravens 6y ago
Discovery requests. Quantity of, and postponement of, hearings. Travel expenses. Meetings with your attorney(s) at the cost of several hundred or thousands of dollars per hour. Time and effort required by your staff. Potential injunctions, paralyzing revenue and fundraising while you wait for resolution of the case.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  That does not sound like minimal effort. I would say minimal effort means getting the cheapest lawyer you can find and having him comment on quick replies you draft yourself to any requests you get.

> but would drain us in a legal battle we could never afford Can someone explain how does that work?

by pier25 6y ago

> but would drain us in a legal battle we could never afford Can someone explain how does that work?

quercusa 6y ago

Twitter has lots of money to spend on lawyers; he didn't. (The US does not have a 'loser pays' legal system.)

steego 6y ago
We get that. He’s asking for someone to explain how the legal system allows a big business to force a smaller business to spend money on legal fees. Also, how do other countries protect the little guy from frivolous lawsuits?
- stormdennis 6y ago
  I'm thinking of the Mclibel lawsuit. McDonald's couldn't scare their defendants off because they were "men of straw".
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
  - not2b 6y ago
    The UK is far worse than the US when it comes to libel law: if a big company sues, the burden of proof is on the individual sued to document every statement. In the US, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the statements were false and damaging.
    - paulpauper 6y ago
      yeah, but is is much harder for plaintiffs to collect in the UK than in the US. Losing a lawsuit in the UK is not nearly as bad as losing one in the US because the Uk has really crappy asset recovery procedures. The US requires losers to disclose everything under the penalty of perjury.
      - Aerroon 6y ago
        It might be more difficult to collect, but there is an undue burden on the individual when the court tries to determine the truth of the matter.
- pier25 6y ago
  Exactly, thanks.
- zaarn 6y ago
  Well, in Germany the solution is the standard rate for lawyers. When you loose a court case, you do have to pay the loosers costs. But only the hours they spent in court or drafting actual legal documents related to the case, no the lunch break where the lawyer bought ice cream. There is also a limit in discovery, so you can't drag court cases on forever as you want. So even if you, as a small SMB, get sued by Twitter, and you only bring your off-the-street lawyer and Twitter brings their 12-headed star team of lawyers, you won't pay more than double your lawyer's bill if you loose in terms of legal fees.
simias 6y ago
>The US does not have a 'loser pays' legal system. Even if it had, you'd still have to manage to stay afloat all the way to the verdict. It wouldn't be hard for powerful entities to let the process drag long enough to sink you in fees, even if you could hope to get it all back eventually. And that would be a very risky bet too, would you bet a few millions against a, say, 95% chance that you'll get that pear logo or that "scoper" trademark? That's a 5% chance of losing and going bankrupt. The only solution is for the process itself to be cheaper. The system shouldn't allow big players to bully small ones.
- namibj 6y ago
  The point is, that Apple/Twitter wouldn't have that incentive to go into a battle with 5% chance of acquiring that trademark and 95% chance of being out a couple million.
  - simias 6y ago
    Not so sure honestly, because the real equation would be more like "90% chances that the smaller company won't challenge it, 10% that it will even reach a verdict". After all with the current system if it goes to court Apple/Twitter will probably have to pay a few millions for their own legal fees. Having them reimburse the other party if it goes all the way and they lose will make it even more expensive, but I don't know if it'll be enough to really change their mentality.

wldcordeiro 6y ago

You as an individual or a small company being built off the savings of an individual cannot afford the myriad of legal fees associated with the process the large corporation is putting you through. It's really not hard to understand how a company with billions in the bank can literally just "war of attrition" you into losing any case, even ones they have no standing to win.

pier25 6y ago
But doesn't the state provide a free lawyer to anyone that needs one? (if that's not obvious, I'm not from the US btw)
- astura 6y ago
  Not in civil cases, only criminal
- ummonk 6y ago
  Not for civil cases. But again for something like this I don't see why you would rather drop the issue and capitulate rather than at least try to fight it out without a lawyer.
  - sowbug 6y ago
    To "fight it out without a lawyer" runs the risk of the court resolving the case against you and awarding damages, most pathetically via entry of default judgment if you can't even figure out how to properly file an initial response to the complaint. Not to mention your own time likely being better spent elsewhere.
- paulpauper 6y ago
  that only applies for criminal cases, not civil
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelmrose 6y ago

gundmc 6y ago

Lawyers are expensive. Court cases take a very long time. It doesn't matter if you win the judgment if you run out of money in the process.

bonoboTP 6y ago
Why do I have to pay anything just for getting sued? The other party should make the case that I infringed on their rights. If I'm sure I'm in the clear, why do I have to move even just my pinky finger? What fees do I have to pay? I don't care about the process, don't want to submit anything. Is there a fee for getting sued? As far as I understand, the problem in America is that nonaction is often assumed to be an admission of guilt. But "actions" often cost money, or can only be legally performed by lawyers who take insane hourly wages. Crazy system.
- ficklepickle 6y ago
  Based on the legal TV shows I've seen, you can get drowned by motions. If the other side files a motion, you have to respond to it. If they have a large legal team, they can pull more legal manoeuvres than your side can even read, let alone respond to.
- tossthere 6y ago
  Yep! Lawyers basically just look for legal entities with money, and exploit the justice system to take as much of it as they can without bankrupting the source. Constant flow. They’re like a tax paid by every person or company with a significant sum of money in America. Doesn’t matter if they’re right or wrong, grounds or no grounds, there will still be a team of lawyers on your side taking your money to “defend” you. Does your lawyer’s $20,000 motion really have any chance of succeeding? Did he really have to pay that company $12,000 to convert all your files to TIFFs? Did he really spend 16 hours on that letter, or does he have 95% of it saved in a template somewhere? At first you’re happy to have lawyers on your side. But eventually you realize even the ones defending you are in on the same game, and are just there to rob you. Don’t ever tell anyone you have money or that your company is successful.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

porknubbins 6y ago

I think the part of the answer is that in the US legal system the discovery process is disproportionately expansive and expensive, being adversarial in nature, as opposed to many civil law countries where the judge tells both parties what documents they will have to produce so that the judge can rule. Here you argue with each other why you both need to review 100k or millions of results of keyword searches. Actually an individual or very small company litigant would be at an advantage not having much in the way of records to search.

Thorentis 6y ago
I don't think it is as simple as civil vs common law differences. The fact that legal professionals charge so much money for glorified word processing and petty arguing is the problem. Especially given the over supply of legal graduates and ever lower quality of judges you will face.

bdcravens 6y ago

Discovery requests. Quantity of, and postponement of, hearings. Travel expenses. Meetings with your attorney(s) at the cost of several hundred or thousands of dollars per hour. Time and effort required by your staff. Potential injunctions, paralyzing revenue and fundraising while you wait for resolution of the case.

akvadrako 6y ago
That does not sound like minimal effort. I would say minimal effort means getting the cheapest lawyer you can find and having him comment on quick replies you draft yourself to any requests you get.