Microsoft Fined In India For Using "Money Power" Against Pirates

bhagwad writes "The Delhi High Court has found Microsoft guilty of using money and influence to make it expensive to defend against piracy cases. According to the judge, 'When the constitution of India provides equality before law, this equality has to be all pervasive and cannot be allowed to be diluted because of money power or lobbying power.' Furthermore, the judge said that Microsoft had to deposit a certain amount of money beforehand, and, if they lost the case, the money would go to the defendants for their legal and travel expenses. For icing on the cake, the court also appointed a commissioner to probe the matter further and ordered Microsoft to pay the costs. In an age where muscled corporations harass the ordinary person through expensive litigation, it's highly pleasurable to see them rapped for it by a judge."

Comments

Headline

[Lemming Mark]

Perhaps 'Using "Money Power" Against Suspected / Accused Pirates' or just plain "Against Defendants" would be more representative?

Re:Headline

[lwsimon]

Is "innocent until proven guilty" a tenet of Indian law? I'd imagine it is, but not sure.

Re:Headline

[CSHARP123]

Exactly, India adheres to principle of Innocent until proven Guilty. /. headline already calls the defendent Pirate. Judge Siding the pirate makes no sense. Judge has not ruled on the case yet. He is making an observation on the MS tactics of filing case in a different jurisdiction when they can file in the jurisdiction where the alleged infringment has happened. Commened the Judge for taking this stand. As usual, MS where ever they go, wouldn't change their lousy tactics.

Re:Headline

[Nefarious Wheel]

Perhaps 'Using "Money Power" Against Suspected / Accused Pirates' or just plain "Against Defendants" would be more representative?

Hmm... representative. I remember reading about what happened in the 18th century in several countries when the courts were used predominantly as a tool for the rich. There was a rather pronounced change in government in several countries, notably France and the USA. It was messy, and all that perfectly good tea went to waste.

Re:Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is. Although the police overstep their bounds regularly by beating/torturing suspects ("accused" is the term used by the police), it is illegal in the Indian constitution. And also whenever the police beat out a confession, it is always some poor suspect and the rich criminals/suspects are always treated properly.
 

Re:Headline

[memphis.barbecue]

How is that even considered a 'fine'? It's not like Microsoft will have to shell out this money in all cases. An even better title would be "Microsoft Forced to Make Deposit in India to Protect Against Using 'Money Power'" ----- These mod points are none of your concern.

Re:Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Not always. There are some offenses called "cognizable" and "non-bailable". For example, practicing untouchability. Anyone can make a complaint and th accused would need to prove innocence. At least, I think that's so. IANAL.

Re:Headline

[Maxo-Texas]

It's sad. They even view this as correct behavior in the U.S.

It's a large part of the reason our justice system is broken with regard to the wealthy and powerful and corporations.
It's a large part of how RIAA succeeds. They just sue you to death until you are out of money and can't defend yourself.

Re:Headline

[digitig]

It was messy, and all that perfectly good tea went to waste.

We never sent our good tea to America!

Re:Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognizable_offence

Re:Headline

[Dare nMc]

well, it seams highly unlikely they could get this ummmm "deposit" back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India#Judiciary Seams very likely this payment would guarantee the defendants never get their day in court, only bled out and locked up. While it is a admiral statement by the Judge, it probably is just like any politician the stated intent is exactly the opposite as the reality of the plan.

Re:Headline

[Mister Whirly]

No, just all the good people. You can keep the tea.

Re:Headline

[natehoy]

You mean Lipton isn't the pinnacle of tea-making civilization? It gets BETTER? ;)

Re:Headline

[CannonballHead]

Maybe that's why we threw it in the Atlantic and now vastly prefer coffee. ;)

Re:Headline

[Dewin]

Maybe that's why we threw it in the Atlantic and now vastly prefer coffee. ;)

This is pretty much how the story of tea in the US goes. Something along the lines of "Well, shoot, now that we don't have any tea NOW what do we drink?" Coffee was found as the substitute.

Re:Headline

[westlake]

Is "innocent until proven guilty" a tenet of Indian law? I'd imagine it is, but not sure.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a concept rooted in criminal law.

We can know exactly when the maxim formally entered American law: through a Supreme Court decision of 1894, Coffin vs. U.S. A lower court had refused to instruct the jury that "The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty".

  Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Origins of a Legal Maxim

In American civil law, there is no such thing as a verdict of guilt or innocence. There is only a finding a fact for the plaintiff or defendant.

You can, in all innocence, infringe on rights in real or intangible property.

That doesn't mean the infringement can continue or you won't have to compensate the owner.

The "prsumption of innocence" doesn't take you very far when it comes to the cold hard reality of a trial.

There, the admissibility of evidence is what matters.

The burden of proof.

Re:Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

LIPTON

We know tea.

(We just don't use any of that knowledge in its manufacture.)

http://wondermark.com/557/

Re:Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all very interesting apropos US law, but you've haven't answered the question which was about Indian law.

FAIL

Re:Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, u need to look at track record of the Indian judiciary. The corruption is there in police and in few cases, in judiciary too. However, those related to the judiciary is quite rare and if it happens, everyone takes hard on it. For example, a judge is found guilty and he is in process of getting impeached in parliament: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8411585.stm

I can tell u one thing for sure that if a court has started taking interest in a case, it does get fair trial. Microsoft can use its money to influence police etc., but not the high-court.

Re:Headline

[Dare nMc]

I did, they are trying, so far 2 tries out of hundreds http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37972 no successes due to impossible rules to get any somewhat connected judge thrown out.

Re:Headline

[Runaway1956]

I can believe that. Most Americans think that Lipton's blend of black and orange pekoe is real tea. If Lipton's tea was thrown in the harbor, then nothing was lost after all. To get some REAL tea around here is almost impossible. If I do find some, they want a week's wages for a pound of tea. There's something wrong with this whole picture.

Re:Headline

[blackpaw]

You call that insipid watered down stuff you drink coffee?

Re:Headline

[lena_10326]

Most Americans don't drink hot tea (which is what Lipton is primarily identified with). But even still, haven't you been to the tea aisle in a US market lately? It's exploded with numerous varieties including imports. Lipton is 1 choice among dozens.

Re:Headline

[the_womble]

Can the judge not have the case transferred to another court?

Re:Headline

[VJ42]

Indian law, like US law is based on British Common law (India being a former colony and all). The basic principles are likely to be very similar.

Re:Headline

[locofungus]

Not only did we not send our good tea, we used to tax them on it. It was no wonder they were unhappy.

Eventually, we realized that this was a bit unfair so we stopped taxing it. This was an anathema to the Americans, "How dare the British NOT tax our tea" so they threw it all into the sea. "Take that you British scum, we WILL be taxed".

The majority of the British, realizing that people who LIKED taxes were alien beyond comprehension (throwing good tea into the sea would also be incomprehensible but it's not clear whether or not the Americans realized that the tea they did discard was undrinkable anyway), quickly decided to kick them out of the Empire.

This was not easy to do. The same people who if you say "Hey, we'd like to reduce the taxes you pay" scream "NOOOOOO!!!" are hardly likely to go quietly when you tell them "We'd like you out of the Empire" so "a cunning plan" was hatched. We'd pretend we didn't want them to go (actually dear George was a bit simple and it's suspected that he didn't have to pretend) and, with a bit of subterfuge and intrigue, we could get those "onion wearing, garlic eating frogs" to "help" get rid ^W^Wthem gain their independence.

This has worked well, albeit for a brief 250 years, but it's starting to crumble. You now hear Americans using phrases like "cheese eating surrender monkeys" when talking about our close friends across the channel. Before you know it they'll be demanding lower taxes and heaven forbid that they might want to become the 55th member of the Commonwealth. Woe is me.

Tim.

Waiting with bated breath to see how this gets modded ;-)

Re:Headline

[Runaway1956]

I'll have some Russian Caravan, please. And, no, it's not a "flavored tea". Maybe I live to far out in Backwoods, Nowhere, but no, I've not seen any real teas in the supermarket aisles.

Re:Headline

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Dude! I saw that movie too, with the millionaire thing!

(I joke, I joke... I've friends from India, AC does not exaggerate...)

Re:Headline

[sayno2quat]

Indian law, like US law is based on British Common law (both being a former colony and all). The basic principles are likely to be very similar.

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you just stepped on VJ42's toes. Don't you know the yanks hate it when they're reminded of that?

Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[fdrebin]

In theory that's the way it is, but in practice, most of the time you need a lot of money to deal with legal matters.

Too bad that lawsuits and prosecutions are about winning and losing, not about finding out the truth.

/F

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus India is more democratic than the US.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[L0rdJedi]

This sounds like "loser pays" which is similar to the UK. The concept being that the entity bringing the lawsuit ends up paying all court fees if they lose the battle. It has less to do with India being more Democratic and more to do with India setting up their system to keep people from bringing frivolous lawsuits. "Loser pays" keeps people from suing about every little thing since they end up having to pay if the suit is found to be without merit and hence they "lose".

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[phantomcircuit]

You can theoretically sue for legal expenses after you have successfully won the first case, but in reality most people don't because the burden of proof then lies on their shoulders. In order to win legal fees in the US you have to prove intent to harm.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[paiute]

"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[nomadic]

There are also statutory causes of action which allow the prevailing party to get legal fees and costs. It's kind of a hodgepodge.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Lord Ender]

Our laws are complex. There simply is no simple, fair solution to solving legal disputes, unless we re-write the laws from scratch, toss away centuries of precedents, and stop legislatures from messing things up again. So... it's not gonna happen.

The US system isn't fair because the better-funded legal team will simply have an advantage due to the unavoidable expenses in analyzing law and collecting evidence.

"Loser pays" systems are not fair, either. If you sue someone for something they really did do, but you just can't find enough evidence to convince the jury of that reality, it's unfair to force you to pay that person's legal bills.

One might imagine a system whereby both sides of a legal dispute must agree to use only the resources the poorer party can "reasonably" afford. But then there would be endless legal argument over what that amount is and how the rule is enforced!

The fact of the matter is that justice is prohibitively expensive.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.

Did your boss walk by or something? Please expand on that a little.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. "Loser pays" expenses of the defendant only if it makes sense to do so. In cases like Exxon being sued by fisherman because passing of their tanker coincides with oil slick, but the case is thrown out because of "lack of evidence", then the fishermen should not be paying Exxon. If on the other hand, if someone sues Exxon for contributing to Global Warming then in that case Exxon should be awarded justifiable legal expenses because the case is without merit (ie. it is not against the law to spew CO2).

It is called judicial discretion.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a chance. Look at their caste system and how little representation the lower castes (millions of people) have. America is far from perfect but you are making an entirely unfair statement. Informative my ass.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[NoYob]

"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.

Did your boss walk by or something? Please expand on that a little.

I'll try.

In a nutshell, big corp, no matter how much in the wrong the are, can wave in front of the 'little guy's" face that they'll keep him in court for years and if he loses, he'll be on the hook for millions of dollars in legal fees. I don't care how sure you are about your case, that's a huge disincentive to stick up for one's self. Now, add in the fact that the laws are skewed in the corporation's favor, it's a system that's ripe for even more abuse than we have now.

Imagine the RIAA going after folks and saying that they could fight and not only have to pay their own legal bills but also the RIAA's if they lose. No one would even think about it. The EFF would have to become very selective of the cases it took - even more than they are now.

And one last thing: there's a huge difference with an individual being stuck with the legal bills as opposed to a corporation. With a corporation, at least the big ones, they lose a lawsuit it's not a big deal - any legal costs an individual runs up they can pay out of their toilet paper budget. An individual loses and they're ruined.

For a loser pays system, I would want restrictions placed on what a corporation can do - maybe even preventing them from collecting legal fees when litigating against an individual in a "loser pays" system.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[AndersOSU]

not the OP

But imagine you sue Microsoft for a small amount of money for, say, voiding your registration after updating a graphics card. MS, in their defense spends tens of thousands of dollars preparing to defend the case (this is not unrealistic, their corporate lawyers are already collecting a salary, now they're just billing their time against your case. Microsoft parades a few expert witnesses in front of the judge (or jury) and successfully confuses them. They rule against you - now you're on the hook for a huge legal bill.

Loser pays disincentivizes bringing law suits against big players. That is not to say our system is necessarily preferable, both systems have their pros and cons.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[plague3106]

Well, it would stop me from bringing a suit. Even though I feel I have a good case, and even if there are very good odds i'd win, there is no such thing as a sure thing and the threat of having to pay no only my laywer fees but the oppositions is enough to deter me.

It wouldn't deter a major corporation though.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the GP is referring to the obvious fact that it would increase the risk for the individual to sue a large company.

Consider the case where someone has a valid suit against a large corporation. They take the suit to court, but are unable to prove their case sufficiently (or lose for other reasons, such as the corporation having better lawyers). This individual brought the case, and lost it, so they then have to pay the legal fees for the corporation's entire cadre of lawyers. This would likely be a huge amount, and far more than what the plaintiff paid for their own lawyers.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Shakrai]

Slashdot has the the worst form of moderation system, except all the others that have been tried.

I love that sig. Congrats for combining Churchill with a snark towards /. :)

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[uglyduckling]

Way to miss the point! On a 'both parties pay' system, the little guy loses even when he/she wins - you can be sued for something completely unreasonable, and unless the court throws the case out summarily, it's going to cost a lot of money to defend yourself, so it's usually easier to settle. With a 'loser pays' system, well - obviously - the loser pays. That means that if the little guy is cetain he is right, it's worth giving it a shot if he thinks the court will understand the issue and he is likely to win. So if you win, you really win, unlike in the US system where you can win and still lose.

Also, it's worth lawyers taking on cases which they think they are likely to win, because they know they will get their fees (which has led to a proliferation of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the UK). Presumably, under the US system, legal firms need to decide on the likelihood of their client being solvent, rather than the likelihood that they will win, again stacking the deck in favour of those with the money.

Your issue about the restrictions on what a corporation can do - of course, in a 'loser pays' system, the opposition can't run up enormous legal bills and presume that the loser will pay them all. The court will award legal fees as part of the damages but that wouldn't mean covering the expenditure of the entire legal department of a big corporation for the duration of the case.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Dare nMc]

. For instance, the Delhi High Court has a backlog of 466 years according to its chief justice.[1] This is despite the average processing time of four minutes and 55 seconds in the court.
see MS will never see this money back, because the pirates will be locked up until their day in court (year 2455) awaiting trial.
So if by democratic, you mean corporation and money wins, then yes this seams 400 years ahead of USA.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[canajin56]

That's how it already works though. Judges can award attorneys fees, though they tend to reserve this for awarding large corporations their legal fees, not individuals. For example, a Fox reporter was fired because his boss told him "I like that bit about bovine growth hormones, but we're sponsored by Monsanto, so change your conclusion to say that it's perfectly harmless", and he refused to lie on TV. A judge held that not only does Fox have a right to fire for refusing to outright lie on TV, but he found the lawsuit so DISGUSTING of an assault on free speech that he awarded Fox 2 million to cover their legal fees.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Bios_Hakr]

I like the idea of "loser pays" until you need to file a suit against someone with unlimited resources. Personally, I'd like to see the method amended to only cover the cost of the lowest fees.

In other words, if you sue me and you spend $1000/hour on legal, but I only spend $100/hour, I only have to reimburse you for $100/hour. If your total fees were $100,000 and mine were only $10,000, I'd have to pay you $10,000 in "loser pays" fees.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I don't understand loser pays, but I thought the way it worked was the loser pays the winner for legal fees, up to the cost of their own legal fees. So if A sues B, A loses, and A paid $1000 in legal fees, A must pay B up to $1000.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[wirelessbuzzers]

Suppose that a faulty MegaCorp device burns Middle Class Joe's house to the ground. Joe tries to sue MegaCorp, but all he can afford is an average lawyer working on contingency. MegaCorp sends the dream team. If Joe wins, then MegaCorp has to pay him and his average lawyer. Sounds good: Joe gets more money. But if he loses, MegaCorp bankrupts him because even though his own lawyer is working on contingency, he has to pay MegaCorp's dream team. This provides a strong disincentive to bring suit.

It's even worse if the defendant automatically pays when losing. In this case, if the MAFIAA sues you, you defend yourself and you lose, you'll have to pay not only the ridiculous statutory damages, but also attorney's fees.

Of course, there are ways to fix this. The most obvious way is for the judge to have discretion on whether the loser pays, but caps on the fees might work almost as well.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[shadowofwind]

"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.

Yes you are undoubtedly correct. Case in point: when my wife and I sued Paypal, and the judge threw it out based on jurisdiction and on our supposedly having given up our right to sue in under any circumstances by signing Paypal's user agreement. It cost us less than $100 to file the suit. Had we had to pay for Paypal's lawyer, that would have prevented us from suing. And this wasn't a frivolous lawsuit - even that judge agreed that Paypal had clearly stolen our money, and their lawyer didn't dispute that either.

In theory a case like this one should have been a criminal case rather than civil, but there isn't always someone interested in prosecuting, even when a crime has clearly been committed. (Another anecdotal example, though not involving a corporation: my grandfather died of a head injury under very strange circumstances, and the DMV agreed that the person who wound up with most of his assets had forged the title on his sports car. But my grandmother was unable to get a criminal case opened, even for a crime of that severity.)

When the perpetrator is a corporation that can afford gazillion dollar lawyers, loser pays protects the corporation even when they are clearly guilty.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[NoYob]

Point taken. And I'm split regarding loser pays or out current system here in the US. (Your post gave me more to chew on - so thank you.)

But I have to wonder, what about the people who are being sued and the case isn't so cut and dried where you're not sure if you have a chance at winning?

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[anarchyboy]

How about a system where all legal aid is supplied say by the state. This could then be combined with a form of "loser pays" or giving the legal representation for free. Essentially everyone would then get the same lawyers no matter who they are, the number and quality of the lawyers given to both sides could be decided based on the importance of the case to society.

I think the drawbacks to such a system are pretty obvious, you put all of the legal power in the hands of the state and it would cost everyone in taxes but there might be something to it.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[shutdown -p now]

One might imagine a system whereby both sides of a legal dispute must agree to use only the resources the poorer party can "reasonably" afford. But then there would be endless legal argument over what that amount is and how the rule is enforced!

Oh, it can be done much simpler: require that lawyers on both sides are provided by the state (and thus payed the same), and picked randomly. Naturally, allow picked lawyers to excuse themselves if they consider to have a conflict of interest, and perhaps also allow parties to "re-roll" once or twice if they really don't like the initial pick. No private expensive lawyers, nor consultations.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[BiggerIsBetter]

The US system isn't fair because the better-funded legal team will simply have an advantage due to the unavoidable expenses in analyzing law and collecting evidence.

What are these unavoidable expenses? Are any of them not self imposed by the legal industry?

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[clone53421]

require that lawyers on both sides are provided by the state

...that actually creates a conflict of interest in any case where the state has an interest in one side of the case.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[PRMan]

This is exactly what I think. Loser pays the lesser of the 2 legal bills to the winner. If the individual wins with his country lawyer, he gets his legal fees back and it costs him nothing. If large megacorporation wins, the individual is still punished by paying double HIS legal fees, but he is probably not bankrupted by this.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[wayland]

One advantage of a libertarian-type system with a proper education in civics is that people can defend themselves.

To understand why a libertarian-type system might help:
When asked why his summer vacation lasted the entire summer, Calvin Coolidge said "We have enough laws already, I don't need to sign any more".

My point is, the simpler the laws are, the easier it is for the ordinary person to understand and use them. 

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

One fair limitation is to make it so that you never have to pay more for the other side than you paid for yourself.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Urza9814]

Also, it's worth lawyers taking on cases which they think they are likely to win, because they know they will get their fees (which has led to a proliferation of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the UK).

Actually there's quite a bit of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the US as well. Mostly disability and general social security cases though. And I would imagine they pre-screen the cases pretty heavily to make sure they're going to win them before they take it. But still, they do exist.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[corbettw]

If it means people won't bring stupid ass lawsuits (like, say, over a graphics card worth at most $200) then I'm all in favor of us adopting this system.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[shutdown -p now]

...that actually creates a conflict of interest in any case where the state has an interest in one side of the case.

Not if you go with the same model as used for e.g. BBC funding - where the organization is funded by the state, but isn't otherwise accountable to it. If, furthermore, the amount of funding is mandated by the law, with no option for the government to easily reduce it, and with no way to affect the payout to specific lawyers, I think it would work. At least, it certainly sounds much easier to prevent and spot undesired entangling here than to enforce impartiality in cases where each side gets defense that is as good as it can afford.

Alternatively, let lawyers be fully independent, but subject fees for their services to a strict limit set by the state (i.e. can't charge more than X), and then require the state provide that exact amount to both parties in court of law, for the duration of the case. If X is reasonable, then "loser pays" sounds like a viable approach.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[countertrolling]

The fact of the matter is that justice is prohibitively expensive.

There is no justice. There is only law.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Zerth]

Except where you are sure you'll win, but run out of money before the case is over and your lawyer isn't willing or unable to work for free temporarily, even with a guaranteed payoff in the end, so you lose and go into debt.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[countertrolling]

anarchyboy says, "How about a system where all legal aid is supplied say by the state." - I'm hip...

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[AK Marc]

Actually there's quite a bit of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the US as well.

You don't want those lawyers. Trust me. Unless it's a class action, you'll be much worse off with them. Generally they won't take the case unless it's a guaranteed win, then they do as little as possible to win it, often advising you to take an inferior settlement, pretending it's in your best interest because they get to move to the next one. Settling 10 cases a week is better money than litigating one every two weeks.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[morgen_m]

The chief justice of India is one of the so called 'untouchables'. The president is a woman. The prime minister is from a religious minory, which requires men to wear turbans. The head of the ruling party is a foreign born woman. Now show me how America matches this diversity?

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[AK Marc]

The most obvious way is for the judge to have discretion on whether the loser pays, but caps on the fees might work almost as well.

I've seen it suggested here to cap the fees at the lowest teams fees. I don't know how that would work with two groups on contingency, but it would be an idea to limit what the little guy pays.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Lord Ender]

I'm sorry, but that's just fantasy. There is no such thing as a "libertarian type [legal] system." Show me one example--just one.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[AK Marc]

There are systems like this. The US has an adversarial system. You are at war with the other side. If both are vigorous and play by certain rules (like disclosure) then it is assumed the truth will be reached. However, there are systems where both sides are tasked with finding the truth, rather than fighting each other. They are all supposed to work together to the same goal. In practice, you either have the government forcing its dogma on all, or an adversarial system with a nice coat of paint.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Caity]

IAAL. More to the point, I am a litigation lawyer. We (Australia) also have the "loser pays" system (although the actual phrase is "costs follow the cause").

Costs orders are discretionary. If a big corporation sues some little guy and the little guy loses, there is a good chance that the judge will not order him to pay the corporation's costs if the little guy had a reasonable, if ultimately unsuccesful, defence.

Also, you will almost never get all your costs back (particularly if you've hired an expensive lawyer - like corporations do). Some things just aren't covered by the usual costs orders, and the costs have to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. If you spend big to win a small case, don't expect to get much of that back.

In my jurisdiction, if you really shouldn't have carried on the case, or if you got a settlement offer that would have left you better off than the final judgment and you turned it down then, even if you won the case, you will get an indemnity costs order against you for all the other party's costs from the date of the offer. An indemnity costs order covers more things than a regular costs order.

Costs orders are **fun**.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[DarkTempes]

Sir, if a company voided the warranty on your graphics card for applying an official update with no warning ahead of time that said update would void your warranty that is not a stupid ass lawsuit. The company just broke an agreement with you and likely millions of other people that would total up to be worth quite a bit of money.

An injustice to one person may seem small and frivolous at first but when you factor in that said injustice likely happens to other people as well then I think you see my point. There is a reason small claims court and class action lawsuits exist.

A stupid ass lawsuit is when you buy HOT coffee from mcdonalds, spill it on yourself, and then sue mcdonalds because your coffee was hot.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

so corporations ripping people off for "only" 200 bucks is ok with that?

how do you even type with so much dick in your mouth.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[alexo]

In any sane implementation of a "loser pays" system, the loser is liable for "reasonable" costs (which may be less than the actual costs) as determined by a judge.

In other words, if your opponent spent $1M on their defence, but the judge determined that a fair cost would be $2K, that's what you'd be on the hook for.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[corbettw]

The case to which you're referring resulted in the woman receiving third degree burns from the coffee. That's not hot, that's scalding, and McDonald's deserved to be sued over it.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

I reckon the Indian judge wants his cut from microsoft. The whole Indian population is corrupt, not just the high end. This is the biggest challenge for India's future. And yes, I am an Indian.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[mhajicek]

Interesting. Source please?

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[initialE]

Say that again? The judge ruled that the reporter owed Fox 2 million dollars for being fired?

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[sillybilly]

We're bemoaning the fees the lawyers charge in a dire situation of the client, similar to healthcare fees doctors charge in a dire situation of their patient. It's a sort of blackmailing that appears almost naturally.
If there were a legal system where individual defendants could defend themselves without lawyers, such as Socrates could(he still lost the case, it's still up to others(judge or jury) to interpret whatever the laws are, what is moral or just), so if people could defend themselves without lawyers, then besides their own time they wouldn't lose much. Actually, having your time wasted being dragged to court is also a way to be done away with, at least in the USA, where most people run in an monthly income to bills/expenses ratio very close to 1 or 1.1 or something along those lines, with their income derived from hourly work where their time is precious. If they are unable to show up at their jobs because they are summoned to court, they can fall under 1 in that ratio, and suddenly find their homes reposessed. For example suppose you've been paying a 30 year mortgage on your home for 20 years now, 10 years to go, unless you can find ways to quickly refinance the equity you built up in your home (which is getting difficult these days), you may default on your payments and end up in foreclosure, and there goes a lifetime's worth of work, simply from being dragged to court before a judge, irrelevant of who wins the case. Even if you win the bullshit case they are throwing at you, the whole point is wasting your time.
If you can find an independent existence with very low bills and monthly expenses, similar to being a yeoman farmer hailed by Newton and Jefferson, where minimal amount of savings are enough to sustain you for decades on, then you're better shielded from such time wasting scenarios, and in theory you could spend an eternity in court talking to lawyers and judges explaining your case and appealing and appealing and asking for extensions and continuances etc, because you'd have lots of free time on your hand. You could use similar tactics on an equal footing against lawyers who have nothing better to do but be in court and waste time as much as needed to win a case, and therefore make money, or even not win the case, and still make money on the time wasting. In fact a lawyer or a judge without a lawsuit is unemployed, so they may have an extra reason to delay things, and increase the bureaucratic red tape, especially if they charge by the hour. In the name of self interest. So, if you can afford to defend yourself because you have no bills and have enough savings to make it a few decades, then you might have a fighting chance. For instance someone making 80K/year, having bills of 30K/year can be worse off, or is easier to screw with that someone making 15K/y (minimum wage), having bills of 1K/yr. However if you do have to hire lawyers, you will not be able to manage from 15K/y. So, in general, any lawsuit brought against you is an automatic loss to you, unless you're able to defend yourself AND have a savings to monthly expense ratio very high. Such people are few and rare. Because, by the way, it's also "illegal" to save up money in the US, and any misbehavior such as funds accumulated in bank accounts, is carefully monitored, and severely punished. This way everyone is a virtual slave.
That's why I worry about all these bank mergers, and concentration of power of information on who has how much. When there are a lot of banks, with many small, disparate and private databases, there is at least some minor degree of shielding from ease data gathering, along the lines of hey look, that person over there saved up all these funds, we can obviously pay him less, lets lay him off and make him take a job that pays less so he gets back into the more secure for us (easier to control him) hamsterwheel 1.1:1 income to expense ratio, where he has almost no freedom to decide on what to do with his life, and we can make all the decisions for him. To those who want to exercise a lot of control, and in essence create virtual slavery (as in what's the difference from the real thing), freedom is the most dangerous thing, in the home of the brave.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[vakuona]

How about a system in which the loser has to pay out 50% of his attorney fees to the winner of the case. So, if say, Microsoft pay lawyers $10m to sue a little guy, and they lose, they pay him $5m plus other awards and if the little guy loses, he pays them say 50% of $3,000, i.e., $1,500, and any other awards subject to a minimum (to prevent frivolous lawsuits by little guys under no win no fee). This way, big companies are discouraged from spending too much in lawyer fees to screw over the little guy. Or alternatively, companies should be forced to share their lawyer budgets with the little guys they are suing. It's supposed to be a fair fight right?

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if we also limit the amount you can spend on legal fees? That also limits the advantage that a rich party has over a poor party in a court battle.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[gmhowell]

I can find plenty of information about the firing of the reporters, but am having difficulty finding a succinct account of the subsequent lawsuit brought by the station against the reporter.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Runaway1956]

*cough*

Have you looked at our president this year? What - 8 generations ago, he would be seen as a runaway slave, right? Some lowlife SOB would hogtie him and take him back to the south for auction. "A fine, strong, healthy buck, do I hear 5000 dollars?"

We have Shrillary running all around the world making us look silly, and Rice before her. And, Rice is BOTH black and female!

We've even had a Catholic president.

Some queer bitch was just elected mayor of Houston.

We have some Native Americans holding office in this nation.

You want diversity? India has nothing on us. You need to keep up with current events, dude.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Runaway1956]

That's one opinion. 3rd degree burns involve the destruction of underlying muscle and tissue. I've seen a lot of scalds in my life, NONE of which were 3rd degree. I've seen a man burnt with live steam, which most definitely WAS 3rd degree. I've seen people burnt from gasoline and gunpowder explosions, some of which were 3rd degree, others weren't.

I've read several accounts of that case, and my most honest opinion is, the old lady hired some good lawyers. I don't believe that she suffered 3rd degree burns. Irregardless of the severity of the burns, I'm pretty sure that the woman was at least equally at fault. The award was out of line.

Not that I like McDonald's or Corporate America, and I most certainly won't defend either one when they take advantage of the little guy. It's just that in this case, I don't believe the hype. I won't drink anyone's Kool-Aid.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Capsaicin]

Have you looked at our president this year?

Yes, not matter what one thinks of Obama, he has at least given all Americans the winning line in arguments like this. (Or rather a majority of Americans gave it to themselves).

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

The chief justice of India is one of the so called 'untouchables'. The president is a woman. The prime minister is from a religious minory, which requires men to wear turbans. The head of the ruling party is a foreign born woman. Now show me how America matches this diversity?

Really, that's very old. A couple of years ago we said that the president is a Muslim, a minority community in India... It is just because the guys at /. are hearing that for the first time that your post was 'mod'ed up to +5...

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a bit slow though .. you're just getting there.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

In which case you get a lawyer with a no-win-no-fee policy, and if you lose, you pay nothing?

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[mjwx]

Loser pays disincentivizes bringing law suits against big players. That is not to say our system is necessarily preferable, both systems have their pros and cons.

No, loser pays disincentives frivolous law suits.

But imagine you sue Microsoft for a small amount of money for, say, voiding your registration after updating a graphics card.

This is frivolous and not welcome in a court of law, this one is reserved for organisations such as the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) who's mandate is to investigate claims such as these. At worse its for the small claims court.

However if you have a sure fire case that cant lose a lawyer will take you on under a no win no fee or similar agreement and the larger party with more money cannot simply wait you out.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[mjwx]

Suppose that a faulty MegaCorp device burns Middle Class Joe's house to the ground.

Is this known to be the cause of the fire?

Case 1: investigators say yes. MegaCorp pays MC Joe's fee's.
Case 2: investigators say no. MC Joe should not have been suing in the first place, he must pay fee's.

This system cuts down on the amount of frivolous law suits, which is a good thing(TM). Firstly it's a huge disincentive to launch a case based on flimsy evidence. Secondly the amount one can be forced to pay can be capped by the courts in accordance with ones earnings. A judge can also dismiss a case on lack of evidence, in this case MC Joe only has to pay for his lawyer.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[mjwx]

and the judge threw it out based on jurisdiction and on our supposedly having given up our right to sue in under any circumstances by signing Paypal's user agreement.

Nope, this one is your fault for not reading the contract you were getting into when you started using PayPal. Now in Australia if a Judge dismisses a case then you are not required to pay fee's to the other party. You cannot have a judgement against you (in Australia) unless you've been given your day in court (Default judgements are only given if you dont show up).

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[shadowofwind]

no, other courts have upheld that a company can not just steal your funds without pretext, $1200 in our case, no matter what the fine print says. I'm glad to hear that in your country you are assured to a just verdict if you are in the right. Here that is not always the case.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[agrippa_cash]

Again, the problem is that for a corporation, like paypal, it is entirely reasonable to spend $100k to preserve the enforceability of a user agreement, therefore the corporation would be able to recover $100k from the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff's demand was $1k.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[alexo]

What's so hard to understand? Not what's reasonable to the corporation; what's reasonable to the judge.
Works pretty well in several countries in Europe.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[the_womble]

In the UK, at least, the loser pays the costs, BUT the costs are assessed for reasonableness by the court.

If your example ever happened, you would only have to pay only what the curt thought MS should have spent.

In any case, a cases involving small amounts of money (I think the current limit is £5,000) are almost always heard by the small claims court where the loser does not pay, and at which people normally represent themselves.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Inda]

You are correct. There is even a sliding payment scale for the small claims court.

But recently there is a step before the small claims court. A simple arbitration is performed and both sides are told the the probable outcome. This obviously cuts down on wasting the courts' time.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

That could never have happened here in Norway (we have a "looser pays" system). It was Joe who brought that damn thing in his house.
You do not leave burning candles and other potentially fire-starting devices unattended. That fire is strictly a matter between Joe and his unsurer.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[clone53421]

Even so you still have the problem that you’re preventing people from obtaining the best legal counsel they can pay for. If the norm is what you get, no more, no less, then you create a monopoly and quality will suffer.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine that - I was modded a troll. Either some little queer bitch, or someone from India who thinks they are better than the US.

Hey - India has been around a lot longer than the US has. India SHOULD be way ahead of us. That covers the trollish AC who posted down below here, as well.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

n cases like Exxon being sued by fisherman because passing of their tanker coincides with oil slick, but the case is thrown out because of "lack of evidence", then the fishermen should not be paying Exxo

I disagree. This needs to work both ways for it to be effective - the corporations that we love to hate can easily get nickeled and dimed to death otherwise. The fact that there's no sufficient evidence is something that the fisherman's attorney should have warned him of ahead of time. Half of the point is to prevent cases that aren't reasonable to begin with - regardless of whether the plaintiff is Exxon or a fisherman.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[b4dc0d3r]

It seems to be up to the judge to determine a reasonable fee. That's just based on me reading multiple RIAA cases. Can't remember which one, but RIAA asked for their entire bill to be covered and the judge reduced the grant to a small percentage of that, with a comment that the defendant could not be expected to foot the entire bill.

Oddly enough, the judge didn't touch the question of whether a fleet of highly paid, dedicated lawyers would provide a better argument than a single lawyer working on multiple cases at the same time. Also, if the defendant had the money to spend on RIAA's legal fees, he probably should have spent it on his own defense instead.

I know, citation needed. But since law is all contextual anyway, it would server you better to find it yourself than for me to look it up.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the solution to this problem of MegaCorp steamrolling CommonMan with money bags can be solved if a regulated rate at which the lawyer can charge (and that is very low) is introduced. So if MegaCorp wins, there are two things at play here.
(1) The DreamTeam gets paid (by the losing defendant) only for the number of hours which they bill to MegaCorp. And the judge can actually pull up the DreamTeam if they charge some ridiculously large number of hours (which again is tied up to the number of times they presented the case in court, etc.)
(2) They do not get paid for these hours at the rate which MegaCorp offers them but at a standard fixed rate which is designed to be low enough to make a lawyer affordable to the common man.

I am curious to know the thoughts of people on this idea.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[DeepHurtn!]

Just to give you more to chew on, it's worth keeping in mind that (in English/Canadian/I'm guessing other Commonwealth common law) judges have a large amount of discretion in awarding costs. Although it is very, very rare, they can even award costs against the *winning* party, if they feel that the whole case was basically an abuse of process.

More routinely, though, costs isn't an all or nothing affair -- you can get costs for individual motions or unreasonable delays caused by the other party. For example, let's say a party wins a trial that takes 5 days. The judge thinks they were really dragging it out -- calling repetitive evidence, or whatever -- and that the matter should have been resolved in 2 days. The judge can award the winning party only 2 days of costs.

In some jurisdictions, costs can also be used to encourage realistic settlement offers. Let's say Party A offers Party B $100,000 to settle. Party B wins, but only gets $70k. The judge can say, "Ok, you get all your costs up to the date of the offer, but it was a good offer that you should have taken, so you'll only get some of your costs from after that date."

There's definitely a risk that costs-awards can make it risky for an individual to seek to vindicate their rights against a corporation -- but the flexibility in the system (MegaCorp can't just say "Here's our bill for the dozen senior partners we had working on this!") mitgates that down side. And as others have pointed out, there are significant advantages to the system.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[b4dc0d3r]

If you believe you have been wronged, you have the right to request your argument be heard. It's up to your lawyer to inform you if you are an idiot, because s/he can be sanctioned and ultimately disbarred for bringing frivolous suits.

Since McD had already settled similar suits for approximately $500k, it seems reasonable to award punitive damages in that amount, and punish McD's for fighting something they had already (essentially) admitted to in other cases. That's what happened in a nutshell. $160k to cover medical and legal bills, and $400k or so punitive.

This is the same principle the Indian court is using - entities with large amounts of money for defense shouldn't mount a defense simply because they can afford it, or make it more difficult than it should be to have your argument heard.

There's no question the woman was at fault, the jury said her responsibility was 20%. The case was presented because the coffee was way hotter than a reasonable customer would expect, and she did require medical treatment as a result of a product offered. Skin grafts are a pretty severe requirement, regardless of whether it's a third degree burn.

Her lawyers successfully argued that the coffee was unreasonably hot, and were a potential safety problem just like exposed electrical wiring on Christmas lights. Essentially, the argument was that McD's was handing out an unsafe product, and there were already several other similar suits, some of which McD's settled, providing evidence that McD's should have been aware of the problem. There are differing opinions on how hot coffee should be, especially since it is pre-made, sits around, and then is poured into a cup, cooled by cream and/or sugar and/or sitting in the car. Customers don't want cold coffee by the time they are ready to drink it.

Basically the case comes down to what the restaurant should plan for, and what the customer should expect. This particular jury sided with the plaintiff based on evidence presented. All she wanted was coverage of medical costs, McD's offered a token amount, and the final award from the jury was mostly punitive because they believed McD had plenty of chances and reason to settle pre-trial, but mounted a defense instead.

Basically they said the suit was frivolous, not from the plaintiff's side but because it should have already been settled by McD's based on other cases. $2.7 million was reduced by the judge to under $500k, and finally McD's settled (after appeals) for under $600k. Rather reasonable in that context, I'd say.

I know it's wiki, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[shutdown -p now]

Even so you still have the problem that you’re preventing people from obtaining the best legal counsel they can pay for.

It is not a problem. You shouldn't be able to purchase better justice for yourself.

If the norm is what you get, no more, no less, then you create a monopoly and quality will suffer.

There are many ways to control quality apart from competition. In fact, competition often doesn't do the best job. The problem with those other methods is that they don't scale well to the entire economy, but they can certainly be applied in specific niches as needed.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[clone53421]

It is not a problem. You shouldn't be able to purchase better justice for yourself.

You’re not purchasing better justice. You’re purchasing better representation. Companies do this all the time; it’s called advertising. Why should it be different for individuals?

There are many ways to control quality apart from competition.

I don’t think the solution you offered was one of them.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[DeepHurtn!]

She needed *skin grafts*. That's the whole point -- the coffee wasn't just scalding, it was completely unreasonably hot. Why don't you believe she suffered 3rd degree burns...? I think the jury and judge were in a much better situation to decide the facts than you are. It was a very serious burn. At first she only wanted McDonald's to pay her medical costs -- she only sued when they kept on screwing her around. And do you know how the jury calculated the damages? They estimated it was about a days worth of McDonald's coffee revenues. Doesn't seem that outrageous in that context, does it? But the judge lowered it to around $600k anyways.

This case has been misreported so many times. It has been twisted to serve as corporate propaganda for their self-interested "tort reform" bs. It's funny that you refer to drinking Kool-Aid, since you seem to be agreeing with the side who's selling it.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[shutdown -p now]

You’re not purchasing better justice. You’re purchasing better representation.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

If the choice of a better lawyer affects the verdict on the case in my favor, then either the original verdict wasn't just, or the new verdict isn't just. Therefore, I have effectively "purchased better justice" for myself. Furthermore, this means that whoever can afford a better lawyer in the case has justice skewed towards his side (as, given otherwise equal chances, he now has higher chances to win).

If the choice of a lawyer does not affect the verdict on the case (do you seriously believe it does not?), then choice of lawyer doesn't really matter, so there's nothing wrong in getting one selected for you.

Companies do this all the time; it’s called advertising. Why should it be different for individuals?

It's not different for individuals. As an individual, you can hire anyone to "market" your position in any legitimate way - outside the court of law. But commercial advertising by companies does not affect the fairness of justice in any way. And fair justice is fundamental to a free society.

I don’t think the solution you offered was one of them.

I didn't offer any specific solution for quality control - merely mentioned that they exist.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[bhagwad]

Wake me up when the US gets a muslim president. Or a female one. Actually, any non-christian one will do. Merely having the first non while president after 200 years in the US isn't an achievement. It's just one of those things that are way overdue. India has had it all long long ago.

You can also wake me up if it gets a president not born and brought up in the US.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[TheRaven64]

One of my friends was involved in a silly case a few years ago, and I was surprised to learn that the lawyers taking it did so via an insurance mechanism. She was required to take out a policy insuring her against losing the case, which cost around £900. If she lost the case, this policy would pay out her legal fees as well as the cost of the policy. If she won, her lawyers would add the cost of the policy to the amount that they'd request from the defendant for fees. The lawyers got paid whoever won, but the insurance company only made money on cases that were won. They'd spread the risk around a number of cases, so they did okay irrespective of the individual risks.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[TheRaven64]

It's also worth noting that the small claims court is actually quite hostile to legal argument. You are expected to state the facts of the case cleanly and leave interpretation of the law up to the magistrate. Hiring a lawyer for a case in the small claims court may actually work against you.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[wirelessbuzzers]

This wouldn't help as much as you might think. Legal services are expensive. CommonMan probably can't afford a lawyer unless he wins, so even if he only has to pay "normal" attorney's fees, losing probably bankrupts him anyway. It basically negates the advantages of contingency.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[wirelessbuzzers]

If it was a candle, that's one thing. But any electrical device connected to mains power could short-circuit, overheat and set the whole place ablaze. This includes at least his lights, electronics and prolly a dozen heavy appliances.

Or do you Norwegians turn off the heat at night and throw the breakers?

Or have I been trolled?

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[wirelessbuzzers]

Is this known to be the cause of the fire?

Yes, but a footnote in the operator's manual warns against operating near any sort of combustible material, because MegaCorp knows how to cover its collective ass.

Lawsuits aren't usually simple, which is why I agree that judges should have discretion in cases like this.

Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept

[mjwx]

Yes, but a footnote in the operator's manual warns against operating near any sort of combustible material, because MegaCorp knows how to cover its collective ass.

Thats why there are corporate malfeasance laws.

Warnings are null and void when an unsigned contract (EULA, fineprint et al) is unreasonable. If a fault in a product caused a fire and this has been confirmed by a professional (fire dept, arson squad, forensics professor and so on) or can be replicated then it doesn't matter what is written in the fine print, MegaCorp is at fault for releasing a defective product regardless. I thought we dealt with this when Ford sold the explosive car and decided it was cheaper to pay out the victims families then recall it.

The problem here isn't the loser pays system, it the fact the US gives too much leeway to corporations.

Jurisdictional Problem

[phantomcircuit]

This is entirely about jurisdiction. The copyright violations occurred in four cities, but microsoft filed suit in the capital. The judge is merely saying that if they insist on suing in the capital they must pay for the defendants travel expenses in the event microsoft loses.

Re:Jurisdictional Problem

[t0p]

I don't agree that this is just a jurisdictional matter. This is about the fact that the judge thinks Microsoft filed suit in the capital to make it too expensive for the defendants to contest the case.

Get Your Legal Expenses Paid

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States, the loser of a case usually only has to pay expenses if it was obviously frivolous. Maybe I could move to India, and make a living off getting sued falsely? I know it's easy to get the RIAA to sue you, by adding your IP Address to a tracker for copyrighted works (without actually downloading from that torrent). Or just by running a Tor exit node. If I could get sued enough for, could I profit off of it? Could I make them pay for my meals and hotel while I travel to the city where the court is?

Re:Very Poor Taste

[DoofusOfDeath]

Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary?

Agreed. I realize that Vanilla Ice lowered the standards, but this crap would make Dr. Dre vomit.

Im torn

[jhoegl]

Im torn here. I like the fact that Microsoft or any other company can not overpower a citizen with their wealth like they can here in the USA. RIAA has shown how one can be destroyed regardless of guilt. However, I know for a fact that companies in India warez their Microsoft products. This leads to an unfair advantage to these companies as Microsoft dollars can add up pretty quickly and companies that do obey the licensing laws are subject to higher prices when they charge for their services.
I am glad that Microsoft is finally going after companies in India and other foreign countries that companies here in the USA compete with. Perhaps this will help a bit in leveling the playing field. Good luck to MS in this endeavor.

Re:Im torn

[mea37]

I don't see anything in that to be torn over.

The court's ruling does not prevent MS from pursuing its claims, particularly if they are legitimate. It does say that MS cannot try to deny the defendants their right to a fair trial. Even a guilty party has that right.

There is only a dilema if you believe you have reason to choose sides between the alleged pirates or MS. Why do you think you need to choose sides? If the alleged pirates are guilty, but also MS is trying to bully them, then both are wrong. On the other hand, while there is piracy in India, you don't know that these particular allegations are true.

That's the point of a fair trial. The rules shouldn't favor either side, so there is no need to take a side. All you have to decide to evaluate the merits of this ruling, is whether it makes the playing field more level or less so.

Re:Im torn

[natehoy]

If Microsoft feels they have a good case, they should still pursue it. Microsoft only has to pay the defendant's expenses if they lose. If they win, they can probably get their own travel expenses added on.

Large companies can and do use their banks of on-staff lawyers and the various jurisdictions they have presences in to make their suits harder to defend against. Individuals or small companies cannot hope to afford to defend themselves against a concerted attack from a megacorp. This could really have a chilling effect on the "sue 'em all and let the courts sort it out" approach to license management, which is good.

PS: Plenty of companies here in the US also warez their MS products. It's an incidental expense, though, compared to the real money savings (labor), so I honestly doubt you'll see a leveling of the playing field - many of your Indian competitors are very large companies (WiPro, TaTa) who I very much doubt would dare violate MS licensing for extra profit.

Re:Im torn

[jhoegl]

I know of at least one "medical billing company" that handles our medical billing on warezed equipment. They admitted to me they do it. So here you have a company that is outsourcing its Medical Billing skills using warezed OSes that are probably compromised.

Keep in mind that medical billing contains a patients data(SSN, Home address/phone, etc.) for billing purposes.
How does that make you feel?

Re:Im torn

[natehoy]

No offense, but I'd like to know as much about your company's decision to choose them, knowing that they are using warez and with suspicions that they are compromised, as I would about your vendor.

It's one thing for a vendor to use warez, it's even a bigger problem if the company that collects the data from me is knowingly giving it to an outsource group they feel is untrustworthy.

Re:Im torn

[EzInKy]

Personally I feel medical billing software should be required to be open source so that every line of their code could be scrutinized.

Re:Im torn

[jhoegl]

I no longer work for them, I feel the same way you do. It comes down to costs for businesses. They will gladly look the other way because one can claim many things to get out of being responsible. Especially if the third party company signs contracts that state they will take responsibility.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary? It gets rather old watching the word used so flippantly. Good Job bhagwad, you just surpassed Kdawson as the worse /. editor.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[interkin3tic]

Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary? It gets rather old watching the word used so flippantly. Good Job bhagwad, you just surpassed Kdawson as the worse /. editor.

Ooooh! You rapped kdawson AND bhagwad there! Niiiiice!

Nice idea: also in USA and for businesses?

[plankrwf]

Would be interesting, all those travel expenses to a Texas court, for patentcases filed in that special court in Texas...

I know, I know, just kidding!

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone call the PC police, and don't forget to bring a waambulance!

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Raptoer]

Just making sure you know, "rapped" != "raped". I couldn't tell by your response which word you thought it was. Being rapped means to take a gentle blow, for example being rapped on the knuckles. Being raped, is well, being raped.

India is sooo into equality

[ClosedSource]

'When the constitution of India provides equality before law, this equality has to be all pervasive and cannot be allowed to be diluted because of money power or lobbying power.'

But it's OK if it's diluted by centuries of discrimination by caste.

Re:India is sooo into equality

[MickyTheIdiot]

well.. that certainly a non sequitur argument if I ever saw one.

Re:India is sooo into equality

[Yamata no Orochi]

well.. that certainly a non sequitur argument if I ever saw one.

How is a comment about India irrelevant in a discussion about India?

Re:India is sooo into equality

[sexconker]

'When the constitution of India provides equality before law, this equality has to be all pervasive and cannot be allowed to be diluted because of money power or lobbying power.'

But it's OK if it's diluted by centuries of discrimination by caste.

"Shut up and get me my chai, chai walla!"?

Re:India is sooo into equality

[MickyTheIdiot]

The Indian caste system has nothing to do with this article. It's like if you were to complain about the American justice system by saying that the U.S. oppressed Africans for years. It might be factually correct, but what does it have to do with this discussion?

Re:India is sooo into equality

[bcmm]

India is warm!

Re:India is sooo into equality

[Laxitive]

I'm sure if you lend the Indians your time machine, they can go back in time and fix that issue. Until then, I guess they'll have to just live with outlawing caste discrimination in the constitution and then slowly working to change public attitudes.

Or perhaps you've discovered a way to fix the issue with smug off-topic one-liners?

Do tell. I eagerly await your insight into the issue.

-Laxitive

Re:India is sooo into equality

[binaryartist]

Are you suggesting that the rulings are different if you are from a different caste? If so, you are uninformed but you think otherwise!

Re:India is sooo into equality

[ClosedSource]

Perhaps you should write to the judge and tell him that mentioning equality in his ruling was off topic.

Re:India is sooo into equality

[ClosedSource]

My insight is that people in glass houses ...

Re:India is sooo into equality

[ClosedSource]

"Are you suggesting that the rulings are different if you are from a different caste?"

Are you suggesting that no such thing has ever happened in India?

Re:India is sooo into equality

[Laxitive]

Ah, I see, you must be referring to the Delhi high court's support of caste discrimination. I'm having a bit of trouble finding examples of that, though. Could you point me to some of your examples?

I tried searching for '...' in google, but it doesn't yield too much in the way of results relating to the delhi high court.

Thanks in advance!

-Laxitive

Re:India is sooo into equality

[Yamata no Orochi]

Better example of non sequitur for certain. Thank you for your contribution.

Re:India is sooo into equality

[Max Littlemore]

Yah, Bob was a total joke.

How is a comment about Microsoft not relevant?

Re:India is sooo into equality

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the -1 Redundant Smartassery?

Re:India is sooo into equality

[bhagwad]

Are you suggesting that no such thing has ever happened in India?

[Citation needed]

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary? It gets rather old watching the word used so flippantly. Good Job bhagwad, you just surpassed Kdawson as the worse /. editor.

CS-

This is why spelling and reading comprehension are important in school. It is not just so that others can understand you. It is so that you can understand others.

Not as it seems...

[clone53421]

They were not “fined”.

Delhi High Court has asked Microsoft Corporation to shell out Rs 800,000 ($16,000) for choosing to
fight four copyright violation cases in the Indian capital even though they originated in other cities.

...but if you read on...

Microsoft said it was fighting the cases in Delhi as it has its office in the national capital.

But the court told Microsoft if it wanted the cases to be heard here, it would have to deposit a sum of Rs 200,000 per case - as a cost security.

The amount will be kept with the registrar general of the Delhi High Court till the final disposal of the four cases. It will be given to the defendants if the cases are found to be false.

It’s merely a deposit. If Microsoft wins, they get the money back.

Also... $16,000? That’s pocket change to Microsoft. They’re probably laughing right now.

Re:Not as it seems...

[arkenian]

Or maybe they just said "That seems fair" and went on?

Re:Not as it seems...

[clone53421]

Perhaps that is so, but if stories like this still don’t make them laugh then they truly are soulless bastards.

Re:Not as it seems...

[binaryartist]

$16000 might be pocket change to MS. They must have hired a few Indian lawyers and paid them to fight their case(they are helping job creation). So the defendants didnt lose anything(they are happy), a few lawyers in New Delhi got paid. I guess everybody is happy. Win- Win.

Re:Not as it seems...

[countertrolling]

Pocket change? More like pocket lint..

Re:Not as it seems...

[Anonymous Coward]

So this was a good job of creating the appearance of justice without actually leveling the playing field.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Ethanol-fueled]

You dumbass, they were referring to the rapping of the GAVEL.

Correction to the article

[binaryartist]

In the article, somewhere it is claimed that 25000 Rs = 5000$. This is is incorrect. 1$ is approx equal to 46 Rs. Even if you assume that 1$ ~ 50 Rs, 25000 Rs ~ 500$

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Locke2005]

I agree... I'd much rather see Micro$oft get raped by a judge!

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Cro Magnon]

Being rapped means to take a gentle blow, for example being rapped on the knuckles. Being raped, is well, being raped.

We're talking about Microsoft. I'm sure many people here would like them getting the later punishment.

Freudian Slip

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it count as a Freudian slip if it happens while reading? Here is what I read:

"...it's highly pleasurable to see them raped by a judge."

anonymous coward with no anonymous account nick

[Anonymous Coward]

"highly pleasurable"? Oh, please. If you want to pretend you're a journalist, at least read a book on writing.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[natehoy]

A "rap" is a sharp blow (like knocking on a door), or a sharp rebuke (criticism for some wrongdoing), or a criminal sentence for committing a crime. Context would imply the second meaning (a sharp rebuke).

In the second meaning of this word, it's a perfectly appropriate usage for the circumstances. A judge issued a sharp rebuke, therefore he "rapped" Microsoft. I don't see how the usage is flippant, or frankly what's so horrible about the word that it would have a "flippant" usage. I won't cover the music that goes under the name "rap", because that IS too horrible to contemplate, but an Indian judge would use ragas anyway.

Now, if the article had said that that judge "raped" Microsoft, I'd say that was a flippant usage of THAT word.

Fortunately, that's not the word they used.

But India has the best...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

India has the best judges money can buy.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[sexconker]

Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary? It gets rather old watching the word used so flippantly.

A friend of mine made the same mistake many years ago. It was an English Literature class, and we had a group project where we had to stand up and present about various poetry.

When it was his group's turn, they stood in front of the class and began talking about and reading the same poetry that we had all been required to read and discuss - making the entire exercise completely pointless.

My friend was simply reading the poem allowed, from a printed copy when he committed the error.

The teacher heard it, I heard it, and a (different) friend heard it. My friend and I shot each other a glance - a terrible mistake, because I believe we now both got ulcers from containing our laughter.

My friend at the front of the class continued, blissfully unaware of his mistake. The teacher made no attempt to correct him. She either felt it was a lost cause, or was putting all of her effort into squelching her laughter.

The blank stares from the rest of his group, who were standing at his side waiting for their turn to be over, and from the rest of the class confirmed that they either didn't notice, or that they thought it was correct.

After the group was finished, the teacher quietly explained to my friend (who had committed the error) why we had been smirking, squirming in our seats, and frantically biting our tongues.

He was reading "The Raven", by Edgar Alan Poe.

For those unfamiliar...

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently raping, raping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'

This

[KlaymenDK]

'When the constitution of India provides equality before law, this equality has to be all pervasive and cannot be allowed to be diluted because of money power or lobbying power.'

If that quote had any actual truth to it, politics across the globe would be a lot different. It isn't, so it probably isn't. :-(

Good statement, though.

India would be better served...

[MikeRT]

Making its copyright laws more cut and dry. The problem with a loser pays system is that corporations like Microsoft can pay for $500/hour attorneys. Even if it were statutorally limited to "reasonable expenses," a loser pays system can destroy someone pretty quickly which can create real hardship for people who lose or forfeit, but aren't objectively guilty.

What I found interesting about reading the law books of the Old Testament is how many criminal offenses they cover (basically the same as most U.S. states), and how cut and dry (and protective) the standards of evidence are. No witnesses? No conviction in a "felony case." Witness is caught lying against the accused? Judge can summarily sentence the witness on the spot and drop the charges against the accused.

By contrast, modern legal systems are so highly convoluted that ordinary people often have no idea if what they're doing is legal; they just assume it is. I'm not saying that the Mosaic Law is a system we (and India) should adopt, but merely pointing out that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of a much simpler, more cut and dry legal system. Even if the penalties are harsher, a system that has built in 0 tolerance for lawyerly bullshit, that has exacting standards of evidence is a lot easier to defend oneself in.

Re:India would be better served...

[CannonballHead]

Judge can summarily sentence the witness on the spot and drop the charges against the accused.

As I recall, the judge would be allowed to sentence the falsely-testifying witness according to what the false witness was trying to get the defendent accused of.... so, if the false witness said he saw so and so steal 50 shekels of silver and it turns out the witness was lying, the witness could be sentenced as if he had stolen 50 shekels of silver.

I could be wrong about that, I haven't read those sections of the OT in a while, but that's what I seem to remember.

And lest someone come with the "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" thing, that was, as I recall, a way to protect from over-sentencing, not a preclusion to mercy.

India Is Smarter

[b4upoo]

It seems to me from this report that law in India is superior to law in the US. I never would have thought that to be possible. Now we need to get courts in America to protect the poor and the working classes. Go figure!

Oh Pleazzze...

[happy_place]

So essentially Microsoft sought a "Change of Venue" and was fined 16K? Buwahahaha! I wonder what was on Judge Judy today, maybe Slashdot's gonna start reporting that too...

Re:Oh Pleazzze...

[sdpuppy]

16K? I thought that all that ever would be needed was 640K...

Re:Oh Pleazzze...

[Mister Whirly]

Yes, and Al Gore invented the internet.

Re:Oh Pleazzze...

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, Al Gore wrote down the plans for the internet on a single square of toilet paper right after Sheryl Crow got done wiping her butt with it.

Re:Oh Pleazzze...

[palindrome]

Well that explains Facebook.

"pleasurable to see them rapped for it"

[Culture20]

Pbbbhh... chi. Pbbbhh pbbbh chi. Pbbbhh... chi. P'pbbbhh pbbbh chi.
Hoyee Hoyee Hoyee Hoyee
The beat box is back on. Commence.

Permitted poems

[phorm]

My friend was simply reading the poem allowed

Perhaps if your friend had been allowed to choose a different poem, he might not have had such difficulties in reading it aloud :-)

Re:Permitted poems

[sexconker]

There was a list of poems to choose from.

He picked one he was allowed to present.
You were limited in choice because you couldn't present a poem some other group already did, and you couldn't present a super short / super long one.

Yes, "aloud" would work there too.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[natehoy]

Wow, I knew Poe had some dark poetry, but this adds a whole new dimension of darkness to "The Raven".

I very seriously doubt I could have refrained from laughter, and any punishment for laughing would have been tame compared to the amount of damage I'd do to myself trying not to.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend was simply reading the poem allowed,

Perhaps he should have read something unauthorized instead.

Question..

[countertrolling]

Why the extra "p"?

Re:Very Poor Taste

[noric]

Was using the term "rapped" in the summary of the article necessary? It gets rather old watching the word used so flippantly. Good Job bhagwad, you just surpassed Kdawson as the worse /. editor.

CS-

yeah! good editors should detect spelling mistakes, but I still may have been unnecessary to say microsoft was raped by a judge ;)

Re:Very Poor Taste

[clone53421]

A friend of mine made the same mistake many years ago.

Uh, it wasn’t a mistake... well, it was in your friend’s case, but “rapping” was correct. If your friend said “raping”, then yeah... whoops.

the wrong bad guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

"In an age where muscled corporations harass the ordinary person through expensive litigation, it's highly pleasurable to see them rapped for it by a judge."

Well, to be honest if this would be Apple, or Google or the RIAA or Holywood, but i think to its customers Microsoft is way more honest then a lot of other big companies.
Nevermind the marketing talk which seams always wrong for any company.

Apple
Take I-Phone, did you ever heard of batery replacement.. nope cannt be done (is this listening to customers or fooling them).
Never mind brainwashing people that the expensive I-pod is of better quality then the average Korean or Taiwanese mp3 player. (never compare it to their better products like cowwon )
Oh i see you have learned a believe that its cool because it is white,, oh i'm sorry dude i though you where an audio freak who want the best of quality for his bucks..
Apple is using mass brainwashing techniques.
I-hope Google Microsoft, or even presidents of some countries will never use it ( yes we do ! )

Google,
Talking about creating hypes.., telling your own people is using a new phone who is not on the market yet..
Who cares I mean people get serious, dont you think this happens to Samsung, Nokia, HTC, LG, ... Even the "evil" microsoft eats their own dogfood first.
I just wonder how much privacy their phone will have, as they store alle your searches (in the name of patriot act), i wouldnt like a phone with banners based on that.
I'm sorry based on your brouwser searches your friendlist has now been forwarded to the FBI.
We also stop our porn add on your phone and will disconnect, unless your willing to pay a 10.000 dollar since we found you copied an mp3
Google is what any bigbrother likes to be.. i wonder if it receives government funding.. it would be better spend then lets say just another stealth fighter.

RIAA
I could say the same for RIAA but i'm not allowed they ban copy-ing, in the digital age.. common we left stonehenge realize that your out of bussiness, the new kids wont use you.
And you've been miss using young kids way to long now, or say you abused creative free children of art way too long, the artistic community likes to stop your commercial creativity killing activities.
Why is it the artist dont get rich but only the copyright protection agents, who fail to bring music to the audiance (doing a bad job and still get big money) lets go all back to Napster !!!
Without companies like these there would be way more artist, pubs would be popular, less DJ's and more live music. Artist who are free to build upon each-others works..
RIAA.. call them artist body snatchers.. (reminds me.. Radiohead broke free....

Holywood
Well what did they do wrong.. well by now Mickey Mouse should be public domain free of copyrights free for the public, but no see how big companies become, they change goverments.
I think when I dye, then i hope this rat can be hunted (drawn) by anyone dead or alive.. we got to much creativty into our throats from a company who literally in their time misused copyrights, and now is a frontier fighter of copyrights. The hell with them.. but no that's copyrighted by the relegion fanatics. (Even they should watch out, 2000 years copyright is gone for the bible..)
And now most of us all ready know how wrong the world can turn if your keep your copyrights for lets say 2000 years...
please stop these government overruling companies before its to late, and you got a Holywood symbol added to your genome...

And the Microsoft Vista wheren't they evil ?, selling an operating system which had security first as main design rule, to protect you people from viruses.. yeah they are so evil.
I believe they listen better to people then other companies ofcourse linux is more friendly since you cannt blame a company, but well i admit that the foundation is quite good everything works together, its not what i can say from most other software products.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice.

I did the exact same thing with condom condem... sigh.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[amoeba1911]

If somebody is gently raping my chamber door I'd call the police.

Very EASY to fix the system

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Public insurance for lawsuits. Government pays your lawyer unconditionally. you have your OWN choice of lawyer. It can be easily paid for by just cutting billions of foreign aid to Israel and raising the top tax bracket to 75%.

Re:Very EASY to fix the system

[mhajicek]

The City of Minneapolis, in preparation for hosting the Republican National Convention, took out an insurance policy to cover legal costs and fines related to civil rights violations. Having done so, the Minneapolis Police had no incentive to respect peoples rights, and many violations were documented.

Do you think people would drive more carefully if there were no such thing as auto insurance?

Re:Very EASY to fix the system

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think people would drive more carefully if there were no such thing as auto insurance?

Some people might: the ones who are concerned they might have something to lose. However familiarity often breeds complacency and even those people would get sloppier about their driving despite knowing that an accident would have severe financial repercussions. But those people concerned about driving without insurance are the ones who naturally would be less likely to get into an accident. The drivers who hold animated conversations (on their cell phones?), drive drunk, or drive at or beyond their limit of competency (street racers being the most egregious example), aren't likely to modify their behaviour too much whether they have insurance or not. And yet they are most often responsible for accidents. Generally, mandated insurance isn't for them, it's for all the poor slobs they tend to take out in collateral damage during their own self-destruction.

Judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is Judge Dredd when you need him? He would just go blow away all the ceo's of 'generic evil corporation' every time they filed a case and lost.. That would stop stupid lawsuits before they began :)

Re:Very Poor Taste

[belrick]

Did you just tell a story about a person mixing up "rapping" for "raping" and in the process use the word "allowed" instead of "aloud"?

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Hurricane78]

Now this is the story all about how
my karma got flipped, turned upside down.
And I'd like to take a minute, just to write abo(u)t.
I'll tell you how I became the prince of a site called Slashdot.

In eastern 4chan born and raised.
On the /b/ where I spent most of my days.
Trolling out, maxing, perplexing all cool,
and posting some goatses, nude girls from the school.
When a couple of fags, they were up to much bad,
started making trouble in my neighbourthread.
I got in one little flame and my mom got scared,
And said "You're moving outta the basement and 4chan, and take a shower!".

I surfed for a site, and when it got white,
the URL said "slash" and had a dot in the name.
If anything I could say that this site was geek rot,
but I thought nah, forget it, ma home's now Slashdot!

I scrolled up to a thread, ’t was one or two
And I yelled to kdawson "How flippantly flabbergasting of you!"
Looked at my preview. I was enraging bhagwad,
to yell at the post of the prince of Slashdot.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[sexconker]

Nope.
Each group was only allowed only a few poems to pick from. Due to the need to avoid duplication, groups picking super short poems, and groups wanting to fill up the time by having the nerd read for 8 minutes and letting the slackers just hold up a little posterboard.

His group was basically the last one, so he didn't have a choice of what to read.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

".....My friend was simply reading the poem allowed, from a printed copy when he committed the error..."

And one assumes this pun was intentional

be careful

[ClosedSource]

Straw-men can break easily if you stretch them too far.

Re:be careful

[Laxitive]

I see that you have spent some time developing deep experience with strawmen. Good for you.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and give you an A for effort. Let's play smug one liner vs. amused mockery again sometime :)

-Laxitive

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Greetings, I bring (Yoda here...:-)) Interesting this is! Poe, the Raven you mention...

Oh, now you've done it...you've mentioned the poem the Raven by Poe...which instantly brings to mind of geeks everywhere, the immortal poem by Mike Keith, "Near a Raven", a play on Poe, if you wish...But Keith's BRILLIANT poem in actually pi...to 740 digits...each word is the length of a digit of pi! ....

Here's a sample:

http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/pages/puzzlezone/muse/muse1004.asp

Poe, E.
Near a Raven

Midnights so dreary, tired and weary.
    Silently pondering volumes extolling all by-now obsolete lore.
During my rather long nap--the weirdest tap!
    An ominous vibrating sound disturbing my chamber's antedoor.
          "This," I whispered quietly, "I ignore."

Perfectly, the intellect remembers: the ghostly fires, a glittering ember.
    Inflamed by lightning's outbursts, windows cast penumbras upon this floor.
Sorrowful, as one mistreated, unhappy thoughts I heeded:
    That inimitable lesson in elegance--Lenore--
          Is delighting, exciting . . . nevermore.

If only all judges were as wise....

[mrdtr]

'When the constitution of India provides equality before law, this equality has to be all pervasive and cannot be allowed to be diluted because of money power or lobbying power.'
- our legal systems here in North America have long since been diluted, our systems almost always favour those with money and power, anyone who believes otherwise is clearly off in a fantasy world. The fact that those with money can often get out on bail, while the poor guy has to rot in jail, is a perfect example of how unjust our legal systems are.

"But on the strength of its money power it has the added advantage of choosing a court of its own liking which is so far away from the defendant that it becomes problematic and a harassment for the defendant to contest the suit itself."
- purposely choosing to file a lawsuit in a certain jurisdiction knowing full well that who you accused has no reasonable way of showing up at court to defend onself, should be in and of itself illegal.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Being rapped means to take a gentle blow, for example being rapped on the knuckles. Being raped, is well, being raped.

We're talking about Microsoft. I'm sure many people here would like them getting the later punishment.

We're talking about Microsoft. I'm sure many people here would like them getting the latter punishment.

There, fixed it for ya.

Re:Very Poor Taste

[jonaskoelker]

My friend was simply reading the poem allowed

That's unlawfully delicious irony ;)

Re:Very Poor Taste

[sexconker]

I've responded to several people who brought it up.
"Allowed" as in it was from our list, no other group had done it, it wasn't too short or too long.

His group was one of the last (if not the last) to present.