4 ms·

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 e

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 12y ago
I'm not sure a company can be personally sued.
- cbd1984 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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."
      - obstinate 12y ago
        I don't think it's fair to characterize the amount of evidence as "no evidence." There are plenty of folks who think Kleiner looks bad in this case. There is not enough to reach the confidence level required for the plaintiff to succeed. That is a more accurate thing you could say.
        Natsu 12y ago
        I saw lots of allegations but no real evidence. That was, essentially, why the case was lost: for all the things said, nothing of substance could be corroborated. I don't think they even found a bad review.... That makes it really hard for me to believe she was a victim of anything but her own imagination.
        FireBeyond 12y ago
        "I don't think it's fair to characterize the amount of evidence as "no evidence." There are plenty of folks who think Kleiner looks bad in this case." There were a lot of people who decided Kleiner looked bad based purely on the word of Ellen Pao. Verbal recollections are not, however, evidence.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tomasien 12y ago
I believe I have sufficient experience to say that I would not change my opinion if I experienced your hypothetical scenario.
pbreit 12y ago
Because a million bucks is nothing for them and they obviously behaved poorly on a number of occasions.

nulltype 12y ago

I'm not sure a company can be personally sued.

cbd1984 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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."
    - obstinate 12y ago
      I don't think it's fair to characterize the amount of evidence as "no evidence." There are plenty of folks who think Kleiner looks bad in this case. There is not enough to reach the confidence level required for the plaintiff to succeed. That is a more accurate thing you could say.
      - Natsu 12y ago
        I saw lots of allegations but no real evidence. That was, essentially, why the case was lost: for all the things said, nothing of substance could be corroborated. I don't think they even found a bad review.... That makes it really hard for me to believe she was a victim of anything but her own imagination.
      - FireBeyond 12y ago
        "I don't think it's fair to characterize the amount of evidence as "no evidence." There are plenty of folks who think Kleiner looks bad in this case." There were a lot of people who decided Kleiner looked bad based purely on the word of Ellen Pao. Verbal recollections are not, however, evidence.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tomasien 12y ago

I believe I have sufficient experience to say that I would not change my opinion if I experienced your hypothetical scenario.

pbreit 12y ago

Because a million bucks is nothing for them and they obviously behaved poorly on a number of occasions.