5 ms·

This was discussed yesterday a bit also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40416629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40416629 I don’t fully understand

This was discussed yesterday a bit also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40416629 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40416629 I don’t fully understand the last sentence in this article, is this guy going to be punished for being a fraud or is that not how it works?

ceejayoz 2y ago
I'd expect some of that injunctive relief to include his paying the other side's substantial legal fees.
- nerdawson 2y ago
  He's had his assets frozen to ensure he can't get out of paying the legal fees: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bitcoin-high-court-london-b1151135.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bitcoin-high-court-lon... The norm, as far as I'm aware, is that the losing side is on the hook for the winner's legal fees. Seems like a pretty good deterrent against bringing frivolous claims.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Some pros, some cons. It can exacerbate power imbalances; Google can afford to be on the hook for a $20M legal team, but you probably can't.
    - chaorace 2y ago
      The policy probably made more sense back when $20M legal teams didn't exist
    - nerdawson 2y ago
      That's true, in certain situations, companies can use the system to make it painfully risky to attempt to take action against them. There's a very different business culture in the UK when it comes to legal threats and I suspect the fact the loser pays both sides plays a big part in that. As a business owner, I'm happy to avoid more commonplace legal nonsense, even if it means there's potential for huge companies to abuse it.
    - jalapenos 2y ago
      It's not any and all costs. The court makes the loser pay costs that are proportional and reasonable given the issues in the case. Which makes sense as otherwise Google could indeed tell its lawyers to go on a billing spree to hurt the counterparty if they lose. (Not a lawyer)
  - nullc 2y ago
    From reports wright was already spending a multiple of what his opponents were spending, the risk of having to pay our legal costs was probably not a major factor in his thinking. He essentially bragged on his slack that the relative costs didn't matter as his goal was ruining his opponents by causing them costs. A relevant detail is that even though loser pays in the UK they don't pay 100%, so one can potentially make the residual they do pay ruinous.
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
If this was in the UK, I suspect he'll be paying winner's legal fees. The US doesn't do that, but I'm pretty sure that it's fairly common, in the UK. Good way to reduce frivolous lawsuits.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  This was in the UK. He's paying at least those; I suspect this ruling will make a criminal prosectutor's ears perk up. The US permits attorneys fees in some cases, including "against a plaintiff who has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons".
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    This whole thing reminds me of that guy that claims he invented email, and is suing everyone (The Nanny’s husband, if I remember).
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > If this was in the UK, I suspect he'll be paying winner's legal fees. > The US doesn't do that, but I'm pretty sure that it's fairly common, in the UK. > Good way to reduce frivolous lawsuits. Depends on what sort of lawsuits you care about facilitating. A lot of lawsuits in the US are done on contingency. What happens if the defendant wins in that case? If the person bringing the case can't pay their own lawyers, they probably can't pay for the defense's legal bills either. Is the law firm on the hook? That'll put a damper on the cases that firms will take on on a contingency basis.
  - nullc 2y ago
    In the UK the parties that finance litigation are supposed to be the hook in that case.

ceejayoz 2y ago

I'd expect some of that injunctive relief to include his paying the other side's substantial legal fees.

nerdawson 2y ago
He's had his assets frozen to ensure he can't get out of paying the legal fees: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bitcoin-high-court-london-b1151135.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bitcoin-high-court-lon... The norm, as far as I'm aware, is that the losing side is on the hook for the winner's legal fees. Seems like a pretty good deterrent against bringing frivolous claims.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Some pros, some cons. It can exacerbate power imbalances; Google can afford to be on the hook for a $20M legal team, but you probably can't.
  - chaorace 2y ago
    The policy probably made more sense back when $20M legal teams didn't exist
  - nerdawson 2y ago
    That's true, in certain situations, companies can use the system to make it painfully risky to attempt to take action against them. There's a very different business culture in the UK when it comes to legal threats and I suspect the fact the loser pays both sides plays a big part in that. As a business owner, I'm happy to avoid more commonplace legal nonsense, even if it means there's potential for huge companies to abuse it.
  - jalapenos 2y ago
    It's not any and all costs. The court makes the loser pay costs that are proportional and reasonable given the issues in the case. Which makes sense as otherwise Google could indeed tell its lawyers to go on a billing spree to hurt the counterparty if they lose. (Not a lawyer)
- nullc 2y ago
  From reports wright was already spending a multiple of what his opponents were spending, the risk of having to pay our legal costs was probably not a major factor in his thinking. He essentially bragged on his slack that the relative costs didn't matter as his goal was ruining his opponents by causing them costs. A relevant detail is that even though loser pays in the UK they don't pay 100%, so one can potentially make the residual they do pay ruinous.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

If this was in the UK, I suspect he'll be paying winner's legal fees. The US doesn't do that, but I'm pretty sure that it's fairly common, in the UK. Good way to reduce frivolous lawsuits.

ceejayoz 2y ago
This was in the UK. He's paying at least those; I suspect this ruling will make a criminal prosectutor's ears perk up. The US permits attorneys fees in some cases, including "against a plaintiff who has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons".
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  This whole thing reminds me of that guy that claims he invented email, and is suing everyone (The Nanny’s husband, if I remember).
nordsieck 2y ago
> If this was in the UK, I suspect he'll be paying winner's legal fees. > The US doesn't do that, but I'm pretty sure that it's fairly common, in the UK. > Good way to reduce frivolous lawsuits. Depends on what sort of lawsuits you care about facilitating. A lot of lawsuits in the US are done on contingency. What happens if the defendant wins in that case? If the person bringing the case can't pay their own lawyers, they probably can't pay for the defense's legal bills either. Is the law firm on the hook? That'll put a damper on the cases that firms will take on on a contingency basis.
- nullc 2y ago
  In the UK the parties that finance litigation are supposed to be the hook in that case.