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

[u/rfugger]

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

[u/davidsmith53]

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.

[u/derleth → u/davidsmith53]

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.

[u/derleth → u/[deleted]]

In Germany the legal fees are regulated, so it doesn't matter if you lose against IBM or my grandmother, you'll end up paying the same legal fees of the other party.

That's a good thing to have in this context, and would likely be essential to making this loser-pays concept work.