Slashdot Mirror

> I wish people would read: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm (or
> one of another billions sources or the actual case files) before
> always mentioning "the coffee case."

And I wish senseless money-grubbing lawyers would stop treating an incorrect "lottery litigation" outcome as if it were good, when it isn't:

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_ and_stella_liebe.html

That case encapsulates all that is wrong about the current state of torts and the despicable lawyers who take advantage of their vagaries. Anyone who supports the decision in that case lacks common sense (almost all coffee even today is served at an equal or higher temperature) and is likely to be tort-abusing ambulance-chasing swine not worthy of the practice of law.

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_ and_stella_liebe.html

"It's time to put this fucking McDonald's hot coffee case to rest: It's been held up to be a shining beacon of the spurious nature of litigation in America when in FACT it is NOT. 3rd degree burns is not spurious!"

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_ and_stella_liebe.html

Lawyers and pop tarts http://www.overlawyered.com/2004/12/poptart_fire_l awsuit.html

Flaming strawberry pop tart toaster blowtorch http://www.pmichaud.com/toast/

The definitive word from Dave Berry: http://www.cfcl.com/vlb/Cuute/f/pop_tarts.txt

BTW, is this the Netflix deal you are talking about? If by "sweet deal" you mean they only had to give customers a $6 coupon then you are forgetting about the $2.5 Million in attorney fees. Neither side won in that case... it was a lose-lose outcome.

Funny story. Years ago, I paid for the "short time trial membership" (I don't remember, 2 days? 3 days?, whatever it was) that cost like $3 for the Perfect 10 website. This would only allow you to access a certain portion of the website. But who ever did the website allowed directory views such that if you knew what you were doing, you could access all the photos on the website (and by "knew what you were doing" I mean a really trivial use of backspace in the URL line, definately could not be considered "hacking"). So I went through and got all the images at the time, all for the cost of a "trial" membership (and much less that the cost of a single printed copy of Perfect 10). So either Perfect 10 wasn't very web savvy at the time, or the guys who did run the website knew what they were doing and didn't care. I'm suprised Perfect 10 is still around. I've purchased exactly 1 copy of the magazine. While the women are pretty enough, the rest of the magazine wasn't very interesting. Boring. At least it wasn't full of crappy adverts for phone sex lines. Here is an interesting tidbit on Perfect 10 and lawsuits: http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001748.html

Playboy, at least, could be considered an interesting magazine in itself even without the nude pictures (though not nearly as popular). Then again, I haven't read Playboy in years.

The whole point of the lawsuit was that McDonalds was found to have coffee much hotter than the _industry average_, and that this attitude was dangerous (go read the text referenced earlier). It is impossible to *drink* the coffee at the temperature McD was selling it. They had plenty of warning, they did nothing.

Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the US legal system. In the US, you can sue anyone, even though they aren't remotely liable, and win millions. Have a look at the Stella Awards, the previous issue, and OverLawyered for many of the stupidities of the US legal system.

Ahh the hot coffee case... Now that reminds me of my nice hot cup of coffee... that just spilt into my lap. Hmmm, the warmth of it all.

http://www.overlawyered.com/personal_responsibilit y/

I've become addicted to Overlawyered and after reading some of the stunts that lawyers pull, this doesn't surprise me. I understand the argument for having dissenting views for a healthy dialog. But the truth is a lot of lawyers are in it to (surprise, surprise) make money. And if you're not going to help them make money, you can head elsewhere.

The coffee was not at an insane temperature at all. Here is a good rebuttal to some of the standard claims about the case.

I'm just waiting for the lawsuits. I'm sure that some offended conservative group is trying to find distress Moms who's little babies downloaded the patch to modify the game and were sullied. Poor little Johnny.

I think this guy said it best:
http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/002552.html

Me, I'm just amused by the thought of class action attorneys trolling for a named plaintiff parent who will testify that, while she was okay for her little Johnny to buy a game involving drug dealing, gambling, carjacking, cop-shooting, prostitution, throat-slashing, baseball-bat beatings, drive-by shootings, street-racing, gang wars, profanity-laced rap music, homosexual lovers' quarrels, blood and gore, and "Strong Sexual Content," she is shocked, shocked to learn that the game also includes an animation at about the level of a Ken doll rubbing up against an unclothed Barbie doll with X-rated sound effects, and is thus a victim of both consumer fraud and intense emotional distress, entitled to actual and punitive damages totalling $74,999 per identically-situated class member in the state.

From his excellent site:

Me, I'm just amused by the thought of class action attorneys trolling for a named plaintiff parent who will testify that, while she was okay for her little Johnny to buy a game involving drug dealing, gambling, carjacking, cop-shooting, prostitution, throat-slashing, baseball-bat beatings, drive-by shootings, street-racing, gang wars, profanity-laced rap music, homosexual lovers' quarrels, blood and gore, and "Strong Sexual Content," she is shocked, shocked to learn that the game also includes an animation at about the level of a Ken doll rubbing up against an unclothed Barbie doll with X-rated sound effects, and is thus a victim of both consumer fraud and intense emotional distress, entitled to actual and punitive damages totalling $74,999 per identically-situated class member in the state.

q

You should sue Honda for making the windows easily breakable. Later, when you get trapped in your car after an accident and emergency crews can't break the windows to rescue you, you should sue Honda again.

Oh wait, I'm not joking

Re:You've missed the point (Score:2, Interesting)
by lowrydr310 (830514) on Thursday March 17, @09:12AM (#11964442)

Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?

IANAFL

It's possible, but I don't know how likely it is. The trial lawyers, being a very powerful lobby, have consistently opposed the idea. See http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html

June 14, 2003
Essay on loser-pays

The following essay was written circa 1999 by our editor and formerly appeared on the site's topical page on loser-pays.

* * *

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Overlawyered.com's editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". Not online, unfortunately, are most of the relevant sections from The Litigation Explosion, which argues at length for the loser-pays idea, especially chapter 15, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

Also in 1995, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) published a succinct defense of the loser-pays principle, terming it the "full recovery rule" and pointing out that it would improve the position of a large number of plaintiffs with meritorious claims who currently go undercompensated because of the need to pay their lawyers large sums which cannot be recovered from the opponent.

Author James Fallows of The Atlantic called the idea "overdue" and included it in his list of "Ten New Year's Resolutions for America" (National Public Radio).

The principle in other countries: .....

Go to http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html to read the rest of it.

An example from Overlawyered.com's "Loser Pays" archives (bold added):

March 15, 2005
"Doctor fights, wins; lawyers aren't swayed"

Dr. Zev Maycon has been sued four times in three years; he's been dismissed before trial each time, but has missed weeks of work as a result, to the

Re:You've missed the point (Score:2, Interesting)
by lowrydr310 (830514) on Thursday March 17, @09:12AM (#11964442)

Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?

IANAFL

It's possible, but I don't know how likely it is. The trial lawyers, being a very powerful lobby, have consistently opposed the idea. See http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html

June 14, 2003
Essay on loser-pays

The following essay was written circa 1999 by our editor and formerly appeared on the site's topical page on loser-pays.

* * *

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Overlawyered.com's editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". Not online, unfortunately, are most of the relevant sections from The Litigation Explosion, which argues at length for the loser-pays idea, especially chapter 15, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

Also in 1995, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) published a succinct defense of the loser-pays principle, terming it the "full recovery rule" and pointing out that it would improve the position of a large number of plaintiffs with meritorious claims who currently go undercompensated because of the need to pay their lawyers large sums which cannot be recovered from the opponent.

Author James Fallows of The Atlantic called the idea "overdue" and included it in his list of "Ten New Year's Resolutions for America" (National Public Radio).

The principle in other countries: .....

Go to http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html to read the rest of it.

An example from Overlawyered.com's "Loser Pays" archives (bold added):

March 15, 2005
"Doctor fights, wins; lawyers aren't swayed"

Dr. Zev Maycon has been sued four times in three years; he's been dismissed before trial each time, but has missed weeks of work as a result, to the

Re:You've missed the point (Score:2, Interesting)
by lowrydr310 (830514) on Thursday March 17, @09:12AM (#11964442)

Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?

IANAFL

It's possible, but I don't know how likely it is. The trial lawyers, being a very powerful lobby, have consistently opposed the idea. See http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html

June 14, 2003
Essay on loser-pays

The following essay was written circa 1999 by our editor and formerly appeared on the site's topical page on loser-pays.

* * *

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Overlawyered.com's editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". Not online, unfortunately, are most of the relevant sections from The Litigation Explosion, which argues at length for the loser-pays idea, especially chapter 15, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

Also in 1995, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) published a succinct defense of the loser-pays principle, terming it the "full recovery rule" and pointing out that it would improve the position of a large number of plaintiffs with meritorious claims who currently go undercompensated because of the need to pay their lawyers large sums which cannot be recovered from the opponent.

Author James Fallows of The Atlantic called the idea "overdue" and included it in his list of "Ten New Year's Resolutions for America" (National Public Radio).

The principle in other countries: .....

Go to http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html to read the rest of it.

An example from Overlawyered.com's "Loser Pays" archives (bold added):

March 15, 2005
"Doctor fights, wins; lawyers aren't swayed"

Dr. Zev Maycon has been sued four times in three years; he's been dismissed before trial each time, but has missed weeks of work as a result, to the

No court in this country would have listened to a collector trying to sue GM after his unlicensed EV1's brakes failed.

Is it capable of winning a course case? AAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA!!!

With the justice system, you can never be too sure.

Bullshit bullshit bullshit...

http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000421.html

First-rate bilge on secondhand smoke

Jacob Sullum eviscerates an embarrassingly bad op-ed that the New York Times chose to run yesterday (Rosemary Ellis, "The Secondhand Smoking Gun", Oct. 15) on the issue of smoking in public places, based on the supposed "Helena miracle" -- heart attacks in the Montana capital (population 26,000) are said to have dropped suddenly by 58 percent when smoking in public buildings was banned. The claim, he says, is based on a single unpublished study "involving tiny, highly volatile numbers". Had the Times been interested in whether the asserted result would hold up as a matter of epidemiology, it could easily have checked out the experience of other jurisdictions which could offer much, much larger sample sizes than wee Helena: "why have we not heard about a dramatic drop in heart attacks [in New York City itself] since the city's smoking ban took effect in April"? A few phone calls to Columbia-Presbyterian, St. Lukes-Roosevelt and the city's other big hospitals should suffice to establish whether there had been any massive effect of this sort on New Yorkers' proneness to cardiac arrest. (Reason Hit & Run, Oct. 16; Jacob Sullum, "Heartstopping Discovery", Reason, Apr. 4). More: Cato's Steven Milloy weighs in ("Secondhand smoke scam", FoxNews.com, Oct. 17).

Even more (posted May 29, 2004): Sally Satel, "Where There's Smoke", Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2004; Michael Fumento, "Debate Rages Over Second-Hand Smoke", Heartland Institute Health Care News, Jun. 1, 2004; Jacob Sullum, Reason "Hit and Run", Apr. 9, 2004.

I've been trying to do a lot of research laely into the candidates for our upcoming election, and discussions I have with other people are for the most part an extremely disappointing experience. I am frankly shocked that people would vote "just to get W out of office" or "I vote for Bush because I hate Democrats" etc.

I hear a lot of rhetoric about "throwing your vote away". This is usually used as a reason to not vote for Nader, or the Libetarian party, etc. But it seems to me that a vote "just go get bush out of office" or a vote for a party just cause your parents raised you republican or democrat is really the wasted vote.

I think people have lost the focus that a vote is your own personal voice on how our country should be led. It's a sad state of affairs that we're stuck in this 2 party mentality where often people don't vote because they understand the issues of their candidate, or even know what their candidates' stance on the issues are, but cast a vote solely because it's their family tradition, or their hatred towards the other opponent.

I really wish that we could push through an electoral reform that would allow for multiple votes (#1 choice, 2nd choice, etc) or something. I think the power of the people has been stolen by this charade where it's not about the issues, or who is really the best leader, or what a political party will do (or not do) for a country, but something that is done in a thoughtless, rote manner.

I saw excerpts from Faranheit 911 where some protester says "I'd rather vote for a single celled organism than vote for Bush". What does that say about the value of your vote sir? I realise that's his opinion and he's entitled to vote with his opinion, but what does a choice using that methodology do to our country? Is Bush reallly absolutely the worst possible leader of our country? Is there no one worse to be our leader? What if Manson (heck, Charlie or Marilyn) were up against Bush? Is that still his stance? Would you let a convicted murderer lead our country over Bush?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Bush very much. I am not convinced he's a good leader or that he's been entirely truthful to the American people, or our allies overseas. I feel the same way about Kerry, and Edwards. I am a little more comfortable with Cheney, but I suspect that's mainly because he's got a ton of experience in dealing with suprise crap, rather than anything else.

After a little research so far (I registered on the deadline) I haven't really found a platform on either side I care for. I want to use my voice, cast my vote, and not have it 'wasted' by not being cast. So how do I vote?

I'm against abortion (the CEO of my client was adopted, so was a close friend of my father, and I have a 7 month old daughter so I can't conceive of abortion being a good thing).
I like the environment and want to take care of it, but I don't want to rely on forgien energy sources either.
I don't like the UN, I think it's lost it's relevance.
I think socialising our medical system will be a huge mistake, and the main culprit of rising health costs is the trial lawyers and frivilous lawsuits (see Overlawyered.com for details.
I think everyone should have the same rights. I think the government should NOT be involved in the institution of marriage at all, it's a religious practice, not a civil one. Calling a domestic union is an insult to religion.
I don't believe in subsidizing farmers to not grow crops, I want legal marjiuana, I want the war on drugs to end.

So how should I vote? And do the new electronic voting machines allow me to write in a candidate if mine ends up to have not been popular enough to get listed on the ballot in my area?

Since some people feel that social or economic background determines voters, here's my stuff: I'll be a first time voter this year. I barely graduated high school and have worked full time since I was 14 years old (50 hour work week

click here for the link that supports this comment

http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000589.html

Here are their conclusions about the case:

To summarize, the problems with the Liebeck case are as follows:
1) a product that, through open and obvious consequences, injures one in 24 million people is not "unreasonably dangerous";
2) the fact that billions of cups of McDonald's coffee are sold should be per se proof that it was serving its coffee at a temperature that consumers desired, rather than "too hot." No one was forced to buy the hotter McDonald's coffee instead of the lukewarm coffee supposedly served elsewhere; if McDonald's coffee was really undesireably "too hot," it would be punished in the marketplace for this flaw. Instead, there is public policy by jury, and the millions of customers who, for whatever reason, prefer McDonald's coffee, are out in the cold;
3) a defendant who is not the proximate cause of an injury should not be held liable for that injury;
4) there is no principled construction of tort law that holds McDonald's liable for failing to prevent injury in the case of a foreseeable coffee spill, but not a clothing manufacturer for failing to prevent injury in the case of a foreseeable coffee spill, and one can agree that the latter scenario is an absurd proposition for liability;
5) a defendant should not be subject to punitive damages because the jury did not understand that "statistically insignificant" is a technical statistical term, and not an insult; and
6) punitive damages were assessed against McDonald's based on their coffee sales, which is a punishment for selling a lot of coffee, rather than because of their behavior.

While I agree that doctors should have a way to protect themselves from patients who have a chronic case of filing malpractice suits, I wish that they had come up with a different answer. Why don't doctors put some money into lobbying for a loser pays legal system?

Whatever makes you think that everyone has a right to compensation when "bad things" happen? For there to be compensation, there must be fault. Unfortunately, the American legal system is littered with examples of juries finding blame where none exists, because they think that someone "ought" to be compensated. And we as a society pay, in increased costs, restricted services, and restricted freedom.

Lawyers are largely to blame for this problem. There are some classic examples from this very case, as highlighted on overlawyered.com:

Among the many highlights in which the plaintiffs tried to prove their case: lawyers showed the jury a 1976 medical form in which Moore complained to IBM of "allergies, dizziness and blurred vision", and blamed this on "systemic chemical poisoning"; the defense showed the jury the full form, which revealed that this was a reaction to a 1955 tetanus shot and seasonal hay fever.

An IBM witness testified that the trichloroethylene (TCE) that plaintiffs blamed for "system chemical poisoning" was frequently used as an anesthetic for surgery. Plaintiffs tried to turn that around: "Hawes asked Whysner if putting a patient to sleep using TCE would have an effect on the entire system, a systemic effect. `Yes,' Whysner agreed."

A loser pays rule would make these kind of lawsuits very risky for the plaintiff. "I'll sue" would cease to be a meaningful threat.

Money is why we won't get reform as long as Democrats have the power to prevent it.

A loser pays rule would make these kind of lawsuits very risky for the plaintiff. "I'll sue" would cease to be a meaningful threat.

Money is why we won't get reform as long as Democrats have the power to prevent it.

I imagine any study I point to will be immediately dismissed by you as being "irrationally paranoid" so you'll have to excuse me for not wasting my time doing a Google search.


I did one for you, I didn't see any. I found the ones I pointed to though. Please use real studies, facts, and logic to justify lawsuits. It's your line of thinking that has led to this horrible overlawyered situation we have today. You gave absolutely no reason why these fish are a menace to society, you just assume they are because rich people created them.


Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done, especially when the only gain is to make someone enough money to buy their second Hummer, "cool invention" or not.


Rich people have done more for this world than whiners like you ever will. It's because of the rich people in this world who work their asses off to invent things that you can sit in front of your computer typing pointless messages on /. They invented that car you drive around, and they bought up all the expensive new inventions to drive the price down so people like you could buy glowing fish.


If you pointed me to a real study, done by an unbiased third-party, that justified your claims, I would not call you irrationally paranoid, instead I might learn something.


But obviously I'm not going to learn anything from you today, and that's disappointing.


I wish people would stop suing and trying to regulate everything just because they don't trust it, for some reason they can't put their finger on.


In the meantime, the only people calling this product "unsafe" have no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. Again, please point me to some if you have some inside knowledge. But I'd hate for you to "waste your time" by doing a 2 second google search.

I believe that our entire patent, copyright, and trademark system has reached the point of ridiculous.

Consider these examples from Overlawyered.com:

Can you own common words? "In one of the broadest crackdowns ever issued against a domain name holder, a federal judge has ordered eReferee.com to stop using the word 'referee' in all of its domain names. ... In issuing the court ruling, Wisconsin federal [j]udge C.N. Clevert sided with Referee magazine, a periodical holding the trademark to the word 'referee' for the purposes of publication." David Post, an associate professor of law at Temple, called the ruling "unbelievable", saying that regardless of whether eReferee.com had violated trademark law, as was alleged, by using a logo confusingly similar to its rival's, "You just don't want to let someone own the word 'referee'". (Lisa M. Bowman, "Judge approves domain name penalty on eReferee", CNet, Feb. 16; Gretchen Schuldt, "Referee Enterprises Seeks to Halt Competitor from Using 'Referee' in Web Name", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Corporate Intelligence.com, Feb. 23).

Using his own name a legal risk. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Bill Wyman shares his name with a somewhat well-known musician who played bass with the Rolling Stones. He was nonetheless unprepared when he received a letter from the musician's lawyer suggesting that he might be violating the other guy's rights by ... well, by going on using his own name (Bill Wyman, "Will the real Bill Wyman please tune up?", Atlanta Journal-Constitution

"'Let's Roll' Trademark Battle Is On". Why'd she have to hire that lawyer? No sooner does the widow of Flight 93 hero Todd Beamer set up a foundation to honor his memory than its lawyer announces that he's having it apply for a trademark on the now-famous phrase "Let's Roll", so that anyone who wants to use the words on hats or t-shirts will have to fork over a royalty. Since September 11 numerous other individuals have also sought to copyright the phrase, although it was in common use before that date. (AP/Las Vegas Sun, Feb. 1)

Someone might get confused. "Just when you think the battle over domain names and trademarks can get no more ridiculous, Pillsbury goes and ups the ante. Universities and companies as large as Sun Microsystems received cease-and-desist letters this week ordering engineers to stop holding what the [giant flour maker] considers illegal 'bake-offs.' But it's not as if the engineers are huddling together around the oven trading stolen recipes -- in techie lingo, a 'bake-off' is a get-together in which software programmers test their creations against network protocols to see if they will work correctly. ... No matter: The geeks are infringing on Pillsbury's 'bake-off trademark,' the letters argued." (Damien Cave, "Pillsbury Doughboy mauls techies", Salon, Jan. 20)(Slashdot thread)


It is becoming ever more apparent that the entire system needs to be evaluated and rewritten. But, as easy as this is to blame on an outdated system, this case (the parent post) shows that even when a policy is in place, it will be abused and ignored. Perhaps before Trademarking anything, they should read their own Trademark policy or, in the case that they don't recognize playmate as an English word, perhaps they should spend a little time reviewing the dictionary.

What next, Microsoft finally succeeding in Trademarking "Windows"??? Playboy goes after the children's toy industry because they unashamedly use the term "playmate" in many of its toys?

It makes no matter that these advertisers were using the popularity of these words to boost their services. Capitalizing on things is not a crime. Especially when the terms they are capitalizing on are not trademarkable. If anyone

that should be overlawyered.com; I forgot the http://

New york police and city officials can't control the problem themselves so they attempt to blame someone else and take the eyes off of them.

I am going out on a limb here. I say mother earth has killed more people than any gun company ever has. Any time anyone has ever fallen to their death, who was there to cause it? Mother earth and her large gravitational mass and hard rock surface. Who has created large hurricanes and wiped out entire villages? The legal briefs are in the mail. I demand recompense.

Ironic that the U.S. legal system that was founded on principles of personal responsibility now rewards immaturity and greed.

It's not ironic, it's sad. Very sad. It's a consequence of 'the people' not being motivated enough to say 'hey, something is fucked up with certain class of persons using the legal system that was supposed to fairly resolve conflicts for what effectively boils down to blackmail.'

The problem is that everyone is too busy minding their own lives, individuals are unwilling to believe that they could theoretically change things, and public information relies on organs that have no interest in impartiality but profit best if issues are blown up into hollywood style dualistic fights betweent he 'good' and the 'evil'.

What everyone apparently needs to be reminded of is that if we do not want a legal system that can be used to with a single lawsuit amass personal wealth far beyond what can be earned by -say- a lifetime of work saving lives in an emergency room, we have the power to make it so (granted, it'll take a few years, a lot of organization and it won't be easy).

Warning - blatant promotion of organizations I support follows: If this seems like a worthwhile goal to you too, have a look at http://www.atra.org/atra/, http://www.overlawyered.com/ or join one of the many local 'Citizens against Lawsuit abuse' organizations (both sites have a number of local links). Contribute time or money, and maybe, five years down the road, people like David Boies will conclude that it is in their best interest to look for other ways to apply their intelligence to make a living. Any maybe, just maybe, they'll end up doing something that will actually be beneficial to society as a whole.

OK, I know this is getting somewhat off-topic, but if you enjoy reading about STUPID lawsuits, check out this.

Of course, lawyers can argue ad nauseum as to what a constitutes a reasonable fee---or a reasonable anything, for that matter.

Overlawyered has a good section on loser-pays. Lots of good links at the above. Read about offer-for-settlement; it's an interesting variant.

Here in America that doesn't happen either.

Here's some interesting reading: OverLawyered.com

Just look at Corning! The company is now BANKRUPT all based on what is now fully dis-credited "junk science" that somehow linked immunodeficiency illnesses to silicone breast implants.

Wrong. Corning filed bankrupsy to try to get out of the breast implant case.

Or at least according to http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur28.htm and http://overlawyered.com/archives/00oct1.html#00100 6a and many other links.

This article needs to be on a few more websites,

I'd say change the name and thumb your nose at them... this is too valuable a service to lose to some copyright holder and their nitpicking attorneys.

Before anyone stars foaming at the mouth about use of the Dow name (and even the look of their corporate page, which I didn't see the specific mention of) take a look at the following links:

http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0,1653,9452, 00.html

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS .html

http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/

http://overlawyered.com/topics/silicon.html

In places (like most of Europe) that have a "loser-pays" system, it does not work like this -- you don't end up with a "loser" paying the entirety of the other side's bills. The amount that either side has to pay of the other's bills is based on who brought the suit, how valid each side's claims were, how much each side was held responsible for the issue at hand, etc. I don't know how well it works, in practice, but I don't think it does any good to spread false information about how loser-pays systems work. Check out this article for information on how loser-pays systems really work.

Web pages are an art-based, audio-based, text-based medium depending on the designer's whims. Blind people can't read newspaper advertisements and can't order by catalog, deaf people can't hear radio advertisements and can't order by phone. Why should the web be any different?

Why can't a designer make an all-Flash webpage if he wants? Why can't a designer do as he pleases with his site knowing that there are other means to sell items to his customers?

Anyone reading this may think I'm harsh but I'm at a point where I grow weary of unnecessary adjustments. This is NOT handicapped parking. This is NOT denial of employment. This is an effort to limit an audio-visual medium to suit certain people's needs. I wish more people wound understand that the web is audio-visual.

I'm not trying to be snarky with this question, but I have to ask: What would constitute a business site (and thus be subject to ADA policies)? Obviously Southwest would, but would smaller sites that sell t-shirts and hats to subsist be included?

A good blog for (an admittedly skewed) look at ADA lawsuits go to disabled rights at overlawyered.com

Then when you get done looking at this self-serving flackery put out by filthy greedy trial lawyer pirates, look at Overlawyered to see how these dirty bastards are screwing every other sector of American society.

-ccm

I read this a couple of days ago on OverLawyered; they focussed more on Cybercheeze's reply. This is how we should all react to spurious lawsuits.

This has happened. On this page on Overlawyered it has a story about a judge cutting a 1.4 million legal-fee to $294,000, one-quarter of it being paid in $10 to $60 dollar travel vouchers.

"But don't make fun of a poor old lady who got handed a little coffee grenade. Some people screw up, but she just got screwed."

So, it's OK to ignore all common sense and do stupid things, and expect others to take the blame for you? If you step on a nail and puncture yourself, you don't sue Craftsman for making the nail sharp, do you? If you put your hand on a lit stove burner and burn your hand, you don't sue Whirlpool because the stove was too hot, do you? When you burn the roof of your mouth on a hot piece of pizza, you don't sue Domino's because they made the pizza too hot, do you?

Yeah, so this old lady got burned by hot coffee. How in the hell do you think coffee is served, COLD? I used to work at a McDonalds in my teenage years, so I know about how hot McDonalds coffee is. But common sense dictates that hot coffee is not to be placed between your legs, it's to be placed in your car's cup holder, or any related holding device. Granted, the car that Mrs. Liebeck was in didn't have a cup holder, but maybe she could've thought of a better place than between her legs to put that cup of coffee. But rather than use common sense, she put the coffee between her legs, opened the top...and made history as a prime example of the "sue happy" mentality of America today. Yes, McDonalds was partly to blame because they served their coffee at a rather hot temperature, but perhaps Mrs. Liebeck could've used a little common sense and not placed that hot coffee between her legs.

And the moral of this rant is? Use your common sense people! When you spill hot coffee on yourself, it's going to burn. When you stick a fork into an electrical outlet, you're going to get shocked. When you step into the oncoming path of a speeding train, you're going to get killed. When you run on a slippery surface, you're going to fall on your ass. Don't expect a company to make you wealthy for life just because you're an idiot.

And for further reading of lawsuit abuse, I suggest everyone check out Overlawyered.com.

--

.

.

.

Q: Wouldn't it be easier for a dealer to drop the S&W line?

A: The Clinton administration was counting on S&W's status as the number one gun maker. Having absorbed that variety of antitrust analysis that describes a manufacturer as "controlling" a certain market share, the president's men thought helpless buyers would have no place to go. They figured they could leverage S&W's market share through what amounts to a tying arrangement: If dealers and gun shows wanted to stock the dominant manufacturer's line, they'd have to agree to stop promoting disfavored, competitive product lines.

Q: Wait a minute. Isn't that kind of like what Microsoft did to Netscape?

A: Yep. Tying arrangements aimed at excluding competitive products from the market are bad, bad, bad when dominant companies attempt them on their own. But very similar arrangements are to be applauded when companies do them in collusion with state attorneys general and cabinet secretaries.

Q: How did the tying arrangement work?

A: It was an instant flop. Rather than allow someone else's legal needs to dictate their business practices and inventory, many dealers resolved to drop the S&W product line. Instead of the race to settle that the gun suit organizers expected, they got a race to break ties with the (former) market leader. Aside from the dealers who jumped ship, some organizers of shooting matches have told S&W that it is no longer welcome, and other gun companies stopped coordinating their legal defense efforts with S&W, which meant it had to find a new law firm.

Q: What happened then? Did the anti-gun side admit it had miscalculated?

A: You're not going to believe this part. Several of the most combative state attorneys general, including Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal and New York's Eliot Spitzer, announced that they were going to sue the gun industry for not cooperating with S&W. On antitrust grounds, no less. This may be the first antitrust action in history aimed at smaller companies that refused to enter into tying arrangements with the dominant manufacturer in their market. It's a purely political move, meant to punish the still-free portions of the gun industry for their determination to remain free.

.

.

.

Contributing Editor Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, edits the new Web site Overlawyered.com . Visit Walter Olson's official Web site

"Becuase a majority of the population didn't know better. All they knew is gasoline cost them X and Phone service cost Y and they coulnd't buy their own phone."

Well, now people know that they can choose a non-MS OS. Macintosh, various Linux distributions, FreeBSD, BeOS, etc etc. Microsoft isn't stopping those people either.

"The fact that 19 states haved filed suit against M$ shows that there are SOME people out here that do know and care about what M$ has done."

Either that, or they're just looking for some fast cash. Allow me to offer some examples:

Krause & Kalfayan, a firm in San Diego, filed suit against Microsoft because "These arrangements have enabled Microsoft Corporation to exclude other developers of Intel-compatible PC operating systems from obtaining the supply of such generic drugs' active pharmaceutical ingredient."

Shelbee & Cartee, a firm in Birmingham AL, also filed suit against Microsoft. They claimed that Microsoft's business was located in Texas (?!), an asserted that they had a right to represent customers injured by past purchases of Win2K (which was not released at that time) and customers of the "Macintosh Computer Company" (Apple).

Seems like these boys were looking for fast cash. To quote a MS spokesperson, "It seems like all of these cases were written under the influence of an active pharmaceutical ingredient."

Further reading can be found here.

March 29 -- The bold cosmetologists of law enforcement. The New York Times took note this Sunday of efforts in Nevada and Connecticut to enlist beauty-parlor personnel in the task of identifying possible victims of domestic violence for referral to battered women's shelters and other social service agencies (see our March 16 commentary). Its report adds a remarkable new detail regarding the sorts of indicators that Nevada cosmetologists are being officially encouraged to watch for as signs of household violence (being licensed by the state, they have reason to listen with care to what's expected of them). "Torn-out hair or a bruised eye may signal abuse, but more subtle warning signs may come out in conversation. One Nevada hairdresser, [state official Veronica] Boyd-Frenkel said, told of a client who said: 'My husband doesn't want me to see my friend anymore. He says she is putting bad ideas in my head.'

"'Emotional abuse, intimidation, control, jealousy, overpossessiveness and constant monitoring,' she said, can be as sure signs of domestic violence as physical injuries." Does Ms. Boyd-Frenkel, who holds the title of "domestic violence ombudsman" for the attorney general of Nevada, really deem it "emotional abuse" and potential domestic violence when a husband seeks to warn a wife (or vice versa) away from a friend who's considered a bad influence? Is such spousal behavior really to trigger the notice of the official social-service apparatus, and its new deputies in the hair and nail salons of Nevada? (Jeff Stryker, "Those Who Stand and Coif Might Also Protect", New York Times, March 26).