4 ms·
This would stifle small companies even more. Think of the reverse scenario where the large company is infringing on patents/trademark. If you sue, you better wi
by ghastmaster 6y ago
This would stifle small companies even more. Think of the reverse scenario where the large company is infringing on patents/trademark. If you sue, you better win because you risk paying double attorney's fees. With judges and juries making poor decisions a very real possibility that's a scary proposition.
- cutemonster 6y ago> If you sue, you better win because ... I think it'd encourage companies to only sue, if the expected value from winning, was large in comparison to one's litigation costs times two. Which seems ok to me
- frobozz 6y agoA solution for that is for judges to award costs based on the merits of the case and ability of each party to to pay. Tricky case where both sides have a legitimate reason to believe they are in the right - no costs awarded. Borderline barratry - full costs awarded. One FAANG sues another - full costs awarded to the winner. Owner of a small corner shop wins against a FAANG - full costs. Other way round, no costs. Also to set appropriate levels on what costs can be awarded (kinda like the German model). You want to spend 10M on suing a street market stallholder? Knock yourself out, costs awarded = 10k.