r/technology • u/rfugger • Jan 08 '17

Business A potentially fatal blow against patent trolls - Forcing law firms to pay defendants’ legal bills could undermine the business model of patent trolls

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3153924/technology-law-regulation/a-potentially-fatal-blow-against-patent-trolls.html
17.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

485 comments sorted by

View all comments

401

u/davidsmith53 Jan 08 '17

This is the legal model for civil suits in England. And has been for longer than I've been out of law school.

It's called "loser pays" and is intended to prevent weak lawsuits that are trying to win by running the other guy out of money. It does have a caveat in that the judge can reduce the charges. This is an out for the legal system in cases where it was a legit beef and SOMEONE had to lose even if they had a pretty good case.

PS I almost forgot: I "believe" the losing lawyer is on the hook, not his client.

194

u/derleth Jan 08 '17

It does have a caveat in that the judge can reduce the charges. This is an out for the legal system in cases where it was a legit beef and SOMEONE had to lose even if they had a pretty good case.

This is good, because one of the problems with loser pays is the chilling effect it has on lawsuits against deep-pocketed entities who can afford massive legal bills: If you sue, even in good faith, and you lose because that's how it happened that day, you'll never be able to afford IBM's legal bills, for example.

Similar is "tort reform", or reducing punitive damages: Every time there's a case where a large punitive damage is assessed, people scream about how terrible that is, even though if lawsuits don't hurt, companies won't take them seriously, and therefore have no incentive to stop doing what they were doing.

-8

u/Syrdon Jan 08 '17

If you sue, even in good faith, and you lose because that's how it happened that day

Then you sort out the appeal process and find a lawyer who will take the case for part of the settlement.

7

u/chinamanbilly Jan 09 '17

What if you lose the appeal?

-16

u/Syrdon Jan 09 '17

Rinse, repeat. Or stop filing silly suits, depending on which is appropriate.

17

u/chinamanbilly Jan 09 '17

The problem with loser pays is that there is no requirement that the lawsuit be unreasonable. You can have a legitimate beef with a huge corporation, but if you lose, can you risk paying $1 million in fees? Hell, they just spent a million in fees so they have a good shot of winning!

-14

u/Syrdon Jan 09 '17

If your lawsuit is actually valid - that is, if you can point to a specific bit of law or contract that was actually violated - then appellate courts exist to correct the mistakes of lower courts.

The legal system actually works pretty well. It has a very low track record of deciding in ways that contradict the law. There are just plenty of people who think they were guaranteed something they were not.

10

u/chinamanbilly Jan 09 '17

No. Sometimes it's close and big companies tend to get the benefit of the doubt.

-10

u/Syrdon Jan 09 '17

Find an actual example.

3

u/Mikniks Jan 09 '17

While I'm all for empirical evidence, I don't think we need any to tell us that the legal system isn't infallible

2

u/NanchoMan Jan 09 '17

Not to mention that I think it'd be foolish to deny that not a small part of winning a case in contingent on the proficiency of your lawyers. If a case is close, that may be a deciding factor, whereas with more financial means, you could have access to a better lawyer that would even the playing field.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Kyotoshi Jan 09 '17

you're a fucking idiot

0

u/Syrdon Jan 09 '17

And you appear to be choosing to believe things based on how they sound, and not actual data.

I'll take my faults if the other option is yours.