3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - ZeikJT 6y ago
    loser* not looser. (I wouldn't normally comment on mistakes like this but this is an increasingly common mistake online)

by mcherm 6y ago

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.
- ZeikJT 6y ago
  loser* not looser. (I wouldn't normally comment on mistakes like this but this is an increasingly common mistake online)