4 ms·

Like many laws, IP law doesn't apply to big powerful companies unless they go after another big company

ldiracdelta 5y ago
The counter-balance to big scary corporations that can't be challenged because of infinite pockets for lawyers is "loser pays tort reform"
- blincoln 5y ago
  The possibility of losing and having to pay for all of those corporate lawyers in addition to one's own lawyers seems like an even bigger disincentive to me. What am I missing?
  - no_wizard 5y ago
    It’s intended to incentive legitimate cases, the natural order effect here is that lawsuits would be more grounded in reality
    - ohgodplsno 5y ago
      Unfortunately, <MegaCorp> has the ability to send dozens of lawyers at the case, billing them into the millions. You are a small company that happens to have your idea stolen. Even if you are sure that you would win, would you still do it ? If you lose, not only is your idea theirs, but your company is now millions in debts. Why could they win ? Most likely because of the dozens of lawyers they have, that are very likely extremely used to whatever tribunal you may have picked, and can find the smallest flaw in your suit.
      - ldiracdelta 5y ago
        Yes, you only take action once you're sure you're right and you'll win--that's the beauty. Currently, if you're up against megacorp, you're almost literally betting the farm and you're almost guaranteed to go bankrupt because big Corp will try to make you go bankrupt before you win anything. Loser-pays, you actually have a chance to not go bankrupt, because the big Corp will be paying. The lawyers on your side will know this and if they're able to do economic + probabilistic reasoning, they realize that even though you're out of money, big corp is their real payer and thus they can keep fighting. Each lawyer is constantly evaluating the probability that the loser can pay and thus driving toward quick settlement.
    - VRay 5y ago
      Aren’t there a ton of procedural tricks that giant companies can do to make lawsuits very expensive and difficult to win?
      - ldiracdelta 5y ago
        Exactly, but if your lawyers believe your case, they'll keep fighting for you because the big corp will be footing the bill. As it currently stands, legal actions need to be taken to seek recompense from losing parties and frequently only some of the expenses may be recovered.
  - ldiracdelta 5y ago
    The game theory calculus changes dramatically. You only enter lawsuits where you're pretty sure you'd win and you convince the lawyers on your side too. If the lawyers know they're getting paid, they don't care how big your pockets are, they only care how big the probable loser's pockets are. This also discourages trying to bankrupt your opponent when you know you're going lose, because you're digging your own hole. No point going to trial and racking up expense, if every action is really digging your own grave, so encourages settling when the facts are fully known. Ultimately, it seems to align incentives with actual justice, rather than punitive legal action. I imagine it would drastically change how litigious America is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

The counter-balance to big scary corporations that can't be challenged because of infinite pockets for lawyers is "loser pays tort reform"

blincoln 5y ago
The possibility of losing and having to pay for all of those corporate lawyers in addition to one's own lawyers seems like an even bigger disincentive to me. What am I missing?
- no_wizard 5y ago
  It’s intended to incentive legitimate cases, the natural order effect here is that lawsuits would be more grounded in reality
  - ohgodplsno 5y ago
    Unfortunately, <MegaCorp> has the ability to send dozens of lawyers at the case, billing them into the millions. You are a small company that happens to have your idea stolen. Even if you are sure that you would win, would you still do it ? If you lose, not only is your idea theirs, but your company is now millions in debts. Why could they win ? Most likely because of the dozens of lawyers they have, that are very likely extremely used to whatever tribunal you may have picked, and can find the smallest flaw in your suit.
    - ldiracdelta 5y ago
      Yes, you only take action once you're sure you're right and you'll win--that's the beauty. Currently, if you're up against megacorp, you're almost literally betting the farm and you're almost guaranteed to go bankrupt because big Corp will try to make you go bankrupt before you win anything. Loser-pays, you actually have a chance to not go bankrupt, because the big Corp will be paying. The lawyers on your side will know this and if they're able to do economic + probabilistic reasoning, they realize that even though you're out of money, big corp is their real payer and thus they can keep fighting. Each lawyer is constantly evaluating the probability that the loser can pay and thus driving toward quick settlement.
  - VRay 5y ago
    Aren’t there a ton of procedural tricks that giant companies can do to make lawsuits very expensive and difficult to win?
    - ldiracdelta 5y ago
      Exactly, but if your lawyers believe your case, they'll keep fighting for you because the big corp will be footing the bill. As it currently stands, legal actions need to be taken to seek recompense from losing parties and frequently only some of the expenses may be recovered.
- ldiracdelta 5y ago
  The game theory calculus changes dramatically. You only enter lawsuits where you're pretty sure you'd win and you convince the lawyers on your side too. If the lawyers know they're getting paid, they don't care how big your pockets are, they only care how big the probable loser's pockets are. This also discourages trying to bankrupt your opponent when you know you're going lose, because you're digging your own hole. No point going to trial and racking up expense, if every action is really digging your own grave, so encourages settling when the facts are fully known. Ultimately, it seems to align incentives with actual justice, rather than punitive legal action. I imagine it would drastically change how litigious America is.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]