Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"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.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
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.
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.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
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?