8 ms·

Do you not feel it’s a problem to be charging 48k to litigate a 2k issue regardless of the chance to recoup it?

by oneoff786 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago
Do you not feel it's a problem to be charging $50k for a piece of software on a $.20 medium?
- oneoff786 4y ago
  I don’t understand this question. What’s a 20 cent medium?
  - supermatt 4y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6RK4479XD8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6RK4479XD8 ?
  - abstractbeliefs 4y ago
    The CD the software is sold on. It's like the old "why did I pay you $100 to turn a valve?" You're not paying for the CD, the valve turning, etc, you're paying off the time built for the expertise and background engineering.
    - unsupp0rted 4y ago
      The $100 valve-turning story never quite worked for me and I finally figured out why. It's not that you're paying him $100 for the expertise to know which valve to turn, it's that there's no one standing next to him who could reliably for $50 or even for $99 know which valve to turn. You're not paying for his expertise so much as for the scarcity of his expertise.
      - kofejnik 4y ago
        Yes, the guild of valve-turners ensures it
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        Also availability, he came running when you had a problem because he stands to make $100, offer him $10 and maybe he can pencil you in next month.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      Do people still write software for discs outside of console games? I don’t think this comeback is very clever either way. Being paid $100 for a product worth $1000 in total sales is pretty reasonable. Being paid $50k to resolve a $2k seems to be a very unusual outcome. It just raises the stakes of the case by 25x. It seems very unreasonable that a losing party could need to cover so much from their opponents end especially as they get no say in the total stakes. If it was you paying $50k to your lawyer regardless of whether or not you won, sure, that’s just your choice. This is a $50k extra being thrown at your opponent and there’s no incentive to be reasonable about it because it sounds like your own client doesn’t get hit with it. Idk if it applies in this context but if it goes both ways then you’ve got a prisoners dilemma. Spending more on lawyers increases the probability of winning, but also increases the total pot of lawyer money. That’s so fucked up. I would vote for you’re liable for at mode the amount you spent on lawyers personally. If they do 50k on a 2k issue and you don’t even get a lawyer, you may lose 2k but they lose 50k. Incentives to escalate lawyer fees sounds stupid as shit to society.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > Being paid $50k to resolve a $2k seems to be a very unusual outcome. It just raises the stakes of the case by 25x. You are paying for protection of consumer rights, not to be lied to and not to be swindled. What are those rights worth to you? As a company you always have a chance to come to amicable agreement with the customer before the lawyers got involved. Every time you tell a customer to piss off you take the risk that they might take you to court.
        oneoff786 4y ago
        As explained elsewhere, the fees are contingent. You’re not paying the 50k at all, unless something unexpected happens, in which case you’re suddenly paying 50k which you were told wasn’t going to be your problem. But it’s really bad that it’s ok for lawyers to basically encourage you to rack up contingent lawyer expenses. It’s just a toxic system.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        You missed the contingency angle.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    I think he was referring to a USB stick. The point of the question is that you pay for the work not for the single piece of outcome.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  That software didn't magically appear. The development had a cost. The software itself has a value that purchasers provide to the seller. You aren't paying for a medium with some random bits.
  - icelancer 4y ago
    Huh. Sounds like the attorney's time, too.
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      Yep, very much so!
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  Would the software itself be any more valuable if it was engraved on solid gold? No. It doesn't really matter what medium the software is on. Its value is independent of that.
thathndude 4y ago
This is the way the justice system is set up. I don’t really dig into whether this is a systemic problem. I’m not charging my client 48k. I’m recording my time spent working the case. If I have to spend 100 hours working on a case, and my hourly rate is $500 an hour, and we win, then the attorneys’ fee award should be $50,000, regardless of whether the claim is $100 or $100,000. This is an important component of civil rights litigation. Often times does claims have small value (in terms of damages). But we want to incentivize competent lawyering, and so, if you prevail, you get an award of attorneys’ fees. The same is true in this context. If you don’t have a provision like that, then consumers are left without recourse. As it is, there are very few lawyers who practice in this area as is.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Ok but if you lose, your client gets $0 and owes you $50k. No? And if you settle?
  - rocqua 4y ago
    He works on contigency. That is a 'no cure no pay' system.
  - thathndude 4y ago
    No. It’s a contingency fee. My client isn’t paying me hourly. If we lose, we both get $0. This is how lots and lots of plaintiff litigation works, if you’re not familiar. Those guys advertising for car accidents on billboards are not charging you an hourly rate. As plaintiff’s attorneys, we take cases we believe in, we spend our money to prosecute the case (I almost always pay that $200 AAA filing fee for my clients), and then we get paid out on the back end. In my personal opinion, it’s a much more appropriate compensation method, because it puts our interests firmly in line. Based on the very limited understanding I have of this case, if we settle, I’m targeting a 10k settlement and taking a percentage of that (a percentage smaller than the client), and so my client is getting 5k+.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
zo1 4y ago
Sounds fine an dandy when it's "stick it to the big evil corp that has revenues in the hundreds of millions", but a side-effect is that it'll make insurance and legal costs higher for smaller (and potentially very honest) companies.
- ameister14 4y ago
  Except that if the company did what it was obligated to do under the contract there would be no lawsuit, and if there was one the company would win.
  - zo1 4y ago
    And in the case that they did do what was obligated and win the case with 100 hours worth of lawyer time spent? Will the small party pay the lawyer fees for the company?
    - ameister14 4y ago
      Their lawyer would spend some time regardless of whether the other party's lawyer was there or not. Sure, they may have to answer some filings or produce something (I don't really know the rules and procedures of arbitration) but again, a competent person without an attorney would come close to that anyway. If the lawyer loses on contingency after spending 100 hours, nobody pays them; that lawyer eats the loss.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        But it’s super shit that a lawyer can say “you can either give my client 2k or have a chance at giving my client 2k and me 50k” That’s just so fucked up.
        ameister14 4y ago
        I've been thinking about it, and I think it's mostly a balancing of the scales - the company sets the initial terms of the contract almost every time, and has a completely disproportionate amount of power in the relationship. This is a bit more of a spin the other direction, but it still doesn't quite get there. Yeah, it's fucked up, but it's a response to the company being able to do more things that are fucked up and doesn't come out of nowhere.

Do you not feel it’s a problem to be charging 48k to litigate a 2k issue regardless of the chance to recoup it?

jacquesm 4y ago

Do you not feel it's a problem to be charging $50k for a piece of software on a $.20 medium?

oneoff786 4y ago
I don’t understand this question. What’s a 20 cent medium?
- supermatt 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6RK4479XD8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6RK4479XD8 ?
- abstractbeliefs 4y ago
  The CD the software is sold on. It's like the old "why did I pay you $100 to turn a valve?" You're not paying for the CD, the valve turning, etc, you're paying off the time built for the expertise and background engineering.
  - unsupp0rted 4y ago
    The $100 valve-turning story never quite worked for me and I finally figured out why. It's not that you're paying him $100 for the expertise to know which valve to turn, it's that there's no one standing next to him who could reliably for $50 or even for $99 know which valve to turn. You're not paying for his expertise so much as for the scarcity of his expertise.
    - kofejnik 4y ago
      Yes, the guild of valve-turners ensures it
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      Also availability, he came running when you had a problem because he stands to make $100, offer him $10 and maybe he can pencil you in next month.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Do people still write software for discs outside of console games? I don’t think this comeback is very clever either way. Being paid $100 for a product worth $1000 in total sales is pretty reasonable. Being paid $50k to resolve a $2k seems to be a very unusual outcome. It just raises the stakes of the case by 25x. It seems very unreasonable that a losing party could need to cover so much from their opponents end especially as they get no say in the total stakes. If it was you paying $50k to your lawyer regardless of whether or not you won, sure, that’s just your choice. This is a $50k extra being thrown at your opponent and there’s no incentive to be reasonable about it because it sounds like your own client doesn’t get hit with it. Idk if it applies in this context but if it goes both ways then you’ve got a prisoners dilemma. Spending more on lawyers increases the probability of winning, but also increases the total pot of lawyer money. That’s so fucked up. I would vote for you’re liable for at mode the amount you spent on lawyers personally. If they do 50k on a 2k issue and you don’t even get a lawyer, you may lose 2k but they lose 50k. Incentives to escalate lawyer fees sounds stupid as shit to society.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > Being paid $50k to resolve a $2k seems to be a very unusual outcome. It just raises the stakes of the case by 25x. You are paying for protection of consumer rights, not to be lied to and not to be swindled. What are those rights worth to you? As a company you always have a chance to come to amicable agreement with the customer before the lawyers got involved. Every time you tell a customer to piss off you take the risk that they might take you to court.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        As explained elsewhere, the fees are contingent. You’re not paying the 50k at all, unless something unexpected happens, in which case you’re suddenly paying 50k which you were told wasn’t going to be your problem. But it’s really bad that it’s ok for lawyers to basically encourage you to rack up contingent lawyer expenses. It’s just a toxic system.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      You missed the contingency angle.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  I think he was referring to a USB stick. The point of the question is that you pay for the work not for the single piece of outcome.
IncRnd 4y ago
That software didn't magically appear. The development had a cost. The software itself has a value that purchasers provide to the seller. You aren't paying for a medium with some random bits.
- icelancer 4y ago
  Huh. Sounds like the attorney's time, too.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    Yep, very much so!
pmoriarty 4y ago
Would the software itself be any more valuable if it was engraved on solid gold? No. It doesn't really matter what medium the software is on. Its value is independent of that.

thathndude 4y ago

This is the way the justice system is set up. I don’t really dig into whether this is a systemic problem. I’m not charging my client 48k. I’m recording my time spent working the case. If I have to spend 100 hours working on a case, and my hourly rate is $500 an hour, and we win, then the attorneys’ fee award should be $50,000, regardless of whether the claim is $100 or $100,000. This is an important component of civil rights litigation. Often times does claims have small value (in terms of damages). But we want to incentivize competent lawyering, and so, if you prevail, you get an award of attorneys’ fees. The same is true in this context. If you don’t have a provision like that, then consumers are left without recourse. As it is, there are very few lawyers who practice in this area as is.

oneoff786 4y ago
Ok but if you lose, your client gets $0 and owes you $50k. No? And if you settle?
- rocqua 4y ago
  He works on contigency. That is a 'no cure no pay' system.
- thathndude 4y ago
  No. It’s a contingency fee. My client isn’t paying me hourly. If we lose, we both get $0. This is how lots and lots of plaintiff litigation works, if you’re not familiar. Those guys advertising for car accidents on billboards are not charging you an hourly rate. As plaintiff’s attorneys, we take cases we believe in, we spend our money to prosecute the case (I almost always pay that $200 AAA filing fee for my clients), and then we get paid out on the back end. In my personal opinion, it’s a much more appropriate compensation method, because it puts our interests firmly in line. Based on the very limited understanding I have of this case, if we settle, I’m targeting a 10k settlement and taking a percentage of that (a percentage smaller than the client), and so my client is getting 5k+.
  - oneoff786 4y ago

zo1 4y ago

Sounds fine an dandy when it's "stick it to the big evil corp that has revenues in the hundreds of millions", but a side-effect is that it'll make insurance and legal costs higher for smaller (and potentially very honest) companies.

ameister14 4y ago
Except that if the company did what it was obligated to do under the contract there would be no lawsuit, and if there was one the company would win.
- zo1 4y ago
  And in the case that they did do what was obligated and win the case with 100 hours worth of lawyer time spent? Will the small party pay the lawyer fees for the company?
  - ameister14 4y ago
    Their lawyer would spend some time regardless of whether the other party's lawyer was there or not. Sure, they may have to answer some filings or produce something (I don't really know the rules and procedures of arbitration) but again, a competent person without an attorney would come close to that anyway. If the lawyer loses on contingency after spending 100 hours, nobody pays them; that lawyer eats the loss.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      But it’s super shit that a lawyer can say “you can either give my client 2k or have a chance at giving my client 2k and me 50k” That’s just so fucked up.
      - ameister14 4y ago
        I've been thinking about it, and I think it's mostly a balancing of the scales - the company sets the initial terms of the contract almost every time, and has a completely disproportionate amount of power in the relationship. This is a bit more of a spin the other direction, but it still doesn't quite get there. Yeah, it's fucked up, but it's a response to the company being able to do more things that are fucked up and doesn't come out of nowhere.