6 ms·

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.

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.