4 ms·

Curious what is the worst case outcome if one were to just put minimal effort into the legal process, basically just simply state your case and hope judge think

Curious what is the worst case outcome if one were to just put minimal effort into the legal process, basically just simply state your case and hope judge thinks other side is crazy? For example, in breue's case he had enough money for lawyers, but pretend it was the same scenario only breue was an 18yo still living with his parents (who are not wealthy theoretically) Does the judge just blindly believe everything Twitter says since they have lawyers?

kxrm 6y ago
I can give a perspective. I was filing a trademark (US) for an application that I am developing on the side. A gaming market place company opposed the trademark claiming possibility of confusion. They filed the opposition, I was determined to go to discovery with it. After I filed my response denying all allegations, they blinked and we made a small change to the description of the trademark. (Something that I had offered them from the beginning). From my perspective the worst that could happen is I would get to the point where I needed a lawyer (actual discovery) and could determine if it was necessary to continue. Filing an answer to an opposition is not difficult and a little online searching goes a long way to help you avoid making mistakes answering the opposition suit.
- networkimprov 6y ago
  This. You have to call a bully's possible bluff when you can do so on a shoestring. They may seem to have unlimited resources, but a legal dept doesn't actually have a bottomless budget, and it has to demonstrate ROI to the CFO's office. Many attorneys you might consult won't realize this, because they can't conceive of a scenario where you don't need maximal legal representation. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like... :-)
  - patentatt 6y ago
    It’s a little more nuanced than that. Lawyers have ethical obligations to provide sound legal advice and counseling, whether they’re paid for it or not. As in, the legal ethics structure doesn’t really allow for (purposely and knowingly) doing a shoddy job. The lawyer could be on the hook for either doing a bunch of free work or getting disbarred by signing up to do a ‘bare minimum’ job. Maybe there should be a carve out for situations like this.
    - k_sze 6y ago
      I thought that's where law student interns come in. Basically law firms hire law students. When stuff like this comes up, the real lawyer can give hints to the law student and the law student goes talk with the client. The law student has no real obligation as far as the Bar goes (because they're just a student). The real lawyer also never made any direct advice to the client so they are also off the hook.
      - networkimprov 6y ago
        Law students do not "talk with the client" in the US. They're not licensed, so are barred from giving legal advice.
      - patentatt 6y ago
        In these sorts of legal clinics the students work under a supervising attorney who is ultimately responsible for the representation.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      > Maybe there should be a carve out for situations like this. There already is one, it's called hourly billing. You come up with a reasonable plan, and you decide when to call it quits later if the bill gets too high.
      - networkimprov 6y ago
        The point of a carve-out would be to avoid any billing.
mcherm 6y ago
The worst case outcome is that you lose but ALSO become responsible for paying Apple's legal bills. I think that's incredibly unlikely, (in the US legal system there isn't a lot of cost shifting for trademark suits) but if you assume that the person responding to the lawsuit doesn't know what they're doing, then I can't rule it out.
- ummonk 6y ago
  This is why the people arguing that the loser should have to pay the winner's costs as a deterrent against frivolous lawsuits have it completely backwards.
  - Multicomp 6y ago
    I don't remember where I read this, but anecdotally, that is exactly why the United States has the cost structure we do as opposed to the rest of the world.
  - mnm1 6y ago
    It works as a rule if it only applies if the loser is the plaintiff who brought the case in the first place. That would indeed discourage the filing of frivolous lawsuits. In some cases, it should work the other way, but that should be up to the judge and be based on the circumstances of the case. Edit: The downside is that it would also prevent poor plaintiffs from suing richer ones. But that is already generally the case. It's probably best to judge on a case by case basis.
  - namibj 6y ago
    You typically cap this by some metric/tables based on the suit's magnitude ("I'm being sued for $50k") and court events (e.g., adjust hourly for "representation" in court based on how much you're sued for, and then just multiply the table value for that suit-value-range with the hours in court, add bonuses for court stuff that didn't require anyone to personally show up (i.e., mail/fax suffices)). That's afaik how it's down in Germany. Alternatively, you could cap the amount the looser pays to what they themselves payed, devising some sort of scheme to prevent exploits around lawyer-on-retainer/permanently-hired-lawyer on a large-entity's side.

kxrm 6y ago

I can give a perspective. I was filing a trademark (US) for an application that I am developing on the side. A gaming market place company opposed the trademark claiming possibility of confusion. They filed the opposition, I was determined to go to discovery with it. After I filed my response denying all allegations, they blinked and we made a small change to the description of the trademark. (Something that I had offered them from the beginning). From my perspective the worst that could happen is I would get to the point where I needed a lawyer (actual discovery) and could determine if it was necessary to continue. Filing an answer to an opposition is not difficult and a little online searching goes a long way to help you avoid making mistakes answering the opposition suit.

networkimprov 6y ago
This. You have to call a bully's possible bluff when you can do so on a shoestring. They may seem to have unlimited resources, but a legal dept doesn't actually have a bottomless budget, and it has to demonstrate ROI to the CFO's office. Many attorneys you might consult won't realize this, because they can't conceive of a scenario where you don't need maximal legal representation. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like... :-)
- patentatt 6y ago
  It’s a little more nuanced than that. Lawyers have ethical obligations to provide sound legal advice and counseling, whether they’re paid for it or not. As in, the legal ethics structure doesn’t really allow for (purposely and knowingly) doing a shoddy job. The lawyer could be on the hook for either doing a bunch of free work or getting disbarred by signing up to do a ‘bare minimum’ job. Maybe there should be a carve out for situations like this.
  - k_sze 6y ago
    I thought that's where law student interns come in. Basically law firms hire law students. When stuff like this comes up, the real lawyer can give hints to the law student and the law student goes talk with the client. The law student has no real obligation as far as the Bar goes (because they're just a student). The real lawyer also never made any direct advice to the client so they are also off the hook.
    - networkimprov 6y ago
      Law students do not "talk with the client" in the US. They're not licensed, so are barred from giving legal advice.
    - patentatt 6y ago
      In these sorts of legal clinics the students work under a supervising attorney who is ultimately responsible for the representation.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    > Maybe there should be a carve out for situations like this. There already is one, it's called hourly billing. You come up with a reasonable plan, and you decide when to call it quits later if the bill gets too high.
    - networkimprov 6y ago
      The point of a carve-out would be to avoid any billing.

mcherm 6y ago

The worst case outcome is that you lose but ALSO become responsible for paying Apple's legal bills. I think that's incredibly unlikely, (in the US legal system there isn't a lot of cost shifting for trademark suits) but if you assume that the person responding to the lawsuit doesn't know what they're doing, then I can't rule it out.

ummonk 6y ago
This is why the people arguing that the loser should have to pay the winner's costs as a deterrent against frivolous lawsuits have it completely backwards.
- Multicomp 6y ago
  I don't remember where I read this, but anecdotally, that is exactly why the United States has the cost structure we do as opposed to the rest of the world.
- mnm1 6y ago
  It works as a rule if it only applies if the loser is the plaintiff who brought the case in the first place. That would indeed discourage the filing of frivolous lawsuits. In some cases, it should work the other way, but that should be up to the judge and be based on the circumstances of the case. Edit: The downside is that it would also prevent poor plaintiffs from suing richer ones. But that is already generally the case. It's probably best to judge on a case by case basis.
- namibj 6y ago
  You typically cap this by some metric/tables based on the suit's magnitude ("I'm being sued for $50k") and court events (e.g., adjust hourly for "representation" in court based on how much you're sued for, and then just multiply the table value for that suit-value-range with the hours in court, add bonuses for court stuff that didn't require anyone to personally show up (i.e., mail/fax suffices)). That's afaik how it's down in Germany. Alternatively, you could cap the amount the looser pays to what they themselves payed, devising some sort of scheme to prevent exploits around lawyer-on-retainer/permanently-hired-lawyer on a large-entity's side.