3 ms·
>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 fo
by 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 agoThe 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 agoNot 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.