4 ms·

I reject your plea not to downvote - not because I disagree (that is not an appropriate reason to downvote a comment on HN from my understanding) but because of

I reject your plea not to downvote - not because I disagree (that is not an appropriate reason to downvote a comment on HN from my understanding) but because of two things: 1. You said "good for Kleiner". Whether you agree or not, KPCB is massive firm now asking threatening a $1MM suit against an individual who had good faith claims and that just feels really icky to be called "good". I'm fully aware that the burden of proof for damages rests with the plaintiff and she failed that claim, however this is nowhere near the frivolous lawsuit standard. I am going to also reject your plea for factual evidence because I'm not doing your research for you in this instance, but read over some summary judgements in frivolous lawsuit claims that have been ruled in the plaintiffs favor and compare it to the facts of this case. 2. You asked not to be downvoted. Pleas w/r/t voting do not belong on vote based social networks and forums. They are purely manipulative.

res0nat0r 11y ago
You probably would be taking a different tone if it were you whom was personally sued by someone which cost you a million dollars out of pocket, and then have every claim against you dismissed. Why should KPCB be any different in trying to recover money from a court case they won on every count? Just because they have $X amount of money more than you or I?
- nulltype 11y ago
  I'm not sure a company can be personally sued.
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    > I'm not sure a company can be personally sued. Depending on what you mean by "personally sued", this is one of the main reasons limited liability corporations exist: So the shareholders aren't personally responsible for lawsuits the company gets involved in. This is where "corporate personhood" comes from, the idea that, in some limited circumstances, corporations can function as people to make legal proceedings possible. Suing a company to redress a grievance is feasible. The company has an office, assets, and so on. Trying to track down and sue everyone who has or had a financial stake in the company is not feasible, and if it were, companies would cease to exist because nobody could stomach the risk of all of their personal assets being up for grabs if a lawsuit doesn't go their way.
- jes5199 11y ago
  Yes, exactly for that reason. Wealthy organizations have more than an equal share of resources, and should carry an increased burden of the process when in conflict with individuals.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    Is your intent to prevent companies from becoming successful, or would that just be a happy side effect of such a policy? Edit: The question was sincere, and I can't think of any reason for which a corporation of means should be in some way more responsible for frivolous lawsuits than one of lesser means, or of an individual. The logical outcome, to me, seems to be that if there were some inequal burden in the eyes of the law for "wealthy companies" that it would invite frivolous lawsuits on the grounds that suing wealthy companies is now a zero risk endeavor. If I, as an individual, could sue Google with zero fear of retaliation, I can't see why I wouldn't, on the off chance that I might land a pretty large windfall, if I were to win.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    Can you explain more on why it's fair for a party who was judged to be innocent to bear the costs associated for claims judged as false?
    - pyre 11y ago
      > who was judged to be innocent Because this was not a criminal trial and therefore the judgement does not determine "guilt" or "innocence?" Because monied interests always have more power whether they are the plaintiff or the defendant in a case?
      - Natsu 11y ago
        No evidence was found after lots of expensive legal discovery. If there was any evidence of guilt, they should have been able to find something that at least made them look bad, but they did not. You are correct that the proper term for a civil case is "not responsible" but frankly that sounds silly to non-lawyers, as it's too similar to "irresponsible."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- tomasien 11y ago
  I believe I have sufficient experience to say that I would not change my opinion if I experienced your hypothetical scenario.
- pbreit 11y ago
  Because a million bucks is nothing for them and they obviously behaved poorly on a number of occasions.
cbd1984 11y ago
> an individual who had good faith claims How do you know this?
- tomasien 11y ago
  Nobody is even alleging bad faith claims at this time, the claim seems to be about lack of evidence. I addressed that separately.

res0nat0r 11y ago

You probably would be taking a different tone if it were you whom was personally sued by someone which cost you a million dollars out of pocket, and then have every claim against you dismissed. Why should KPCB be any different in trying to recover money from a court case they won on every count? Just because they have $X amount of money more than you or I?

nulltype 11y ago
I'm not sure a company can be personally sued.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  > I'm not sure a company can be personally sued. Depending on what you mean by "personally sued", this is one of the main reasons limited liability corporations exist: So the shareholders aren't personally responsible for lawsuits the company gets involved in. This is where "corporate personhood" comes from, the idea that, in some limited circumstances, corporations can function as people to make legal proceedings possible. Suing a company to redress a grievance is feasible. The company has an office, assets, and so on. Trying to track down and sue everyone who has or had a financial stake in the company is not feasible, and if it were, companies would cease to exist because nobody could stomach the risk of all of their personal assets being up for grabs if a lawsuit doesn't go their way.
jes5199 11y ago
Yes, exactly for that reason. Wealthy organizations have more than an equal share of resources, and should carry an increased burden of the process when in conflict with individuals.
- bmelton 11y ago
  Is your intent to prevent companies from becoming successful, or would that just be a happy side effect of such a policy? Edit: The question was sincere, and I can't think of any reason for which a corporation of means should be in some way more responsible for frivolous lawsuits than one of lesser means, or of an individual. The logical outcome, to me, seems to be that if there were some inequal burden in the eyes of the law for "wealthy companies" that it would invite frivolous lawsuits on the grounds that suing wealthy companies is now a zero risk endeavor. If I, as an individual, could sue Google with zero fear of retaliation, I can't see why I wouldn't, on the off chance that I might land a pretty large windfall, if I were to win.
- Natsu 11y ago
  Can you explain more on why it's fair for a party who was judged to be innocent to bear the costs associated for claims judged as false?
  - pyre 11y ago
    > who was judged to be innocent Because this was not a criminal trial and therefore the judgement does not determine "guilt" or "innocence?" Because monied interests always have more power whether they are the plaintiff or the defendant in a case?
    - Natsu 11y ago
      No evidence was found after lots of expensive legal discovery. If there was any evidence of guilt, they should have been able to find something that at least made them look bad, but they did not. You are correct that the proper term for a civil case is "not responsible" but frankly that sounds silly to non-lawyers, as it's too similar to "irresponsible."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tomasien 11y ago
I believe I have sufficient experience to say that I would not change my opinion if I experienced your hypothetical scenario.
pbreit 11y ago
Because a million bucks is nothing for them and they obviously behaved poorly on a number of occasions.

cbd1984 11y ago

> an individual who had good faith claims How do you know this?

tomasien 11y ago
Nobody is even alleging bad faith claims at this time, the claim seems to be about lack of evidence. I addressed that separately.