Okay, you don't really get it. Here's a brief recap of your main drive, and answers for you:
Q: Why is the American medical system so absurdly expensive and inefficient?
A: Because big businesses make insane profits off your illness. You pay out the ears, your employer's health insurance (assuming you have one) pays out the ears, and big businesses make mad moolah. If we had a more efficient, socialized healthcare system, would their pockets be lined with your money? I think not. But who has more political clout: a big business with loads of cash for policial lobbying, or a bunch of random, politically-unorganized sick people who can't afford the ridiculously overpriced medical care that will save their lives?
Pick which option serves the public better:
1. Giving to gullible people part of money they were tricked into spending
2. Funding agencies to keep legally pursuing companies that trick gullible people into buying their products
Your comment implies you'd prefer the first option, which is extremely short-sighted. While the taxpayers may partially fund these attorneys, the government has very limited funds for many programs. If these attorneys have thus managed to secure funding to pursue scam artists, good for them.
Also, to the many commenters who complain the attorneys make far more than the scam victims: bear in mind the attorneys need to pay for their livelihood. The scam victims predominantly did not purchase software in order to survive, it was likely a discretionary purchase. But the attorneys have families, kids, mortgages, law school loans, etc., and it's absurd to think they should not be paid to pursue criminals. Would you prefer they hadn't taken on this work? If it would make you happier if the original scammers had their full profit while these attorneys worked on something else, you perhaps need to re-examine your priorities and think about what kind of incentive systems you're encouraging.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, you don't really get it. Here's a brief recap of your main drive, and answers for you: Q: Why is the American medical system so absurdly expensive and inefficient? A: Because big businesses make insane profits off your illness. You pay out the ears, your employer's health insurance (assuming you have one) pays out the ears, and big businesses make mad moolah. If we had a more efficient, socialized healthcare system, would their pockets be lined with your money? I think not. But who has more political clout: a big business with loads of cash for policial lobbying, or a bunch of random, politically-unorganized sick people who can't afford the ridiculously overpriced medical care that will save their lives?
Pick which option serves the public better: 1. Giving to gullible people part of money they were tricked into spending 2. Funding agencies to keep legally pursuing companies that trick gullible people into buying their products Your comment implies you'd prefer the first option, which is extremely short-sighted. While the taxpayers may partially fund these attorneys, the government has very limited funds for many programs. If these attorneys have thus managed to secure funding to pursue scam artists, good for them. Also, to the many commenters who complain the attorneys make far more than the scam victims: bear in mind the attorneys need to pay for their livelihood. The scam victims predominantly did not purchase software in order to survive, it was likely a discretionary purchase. But the attorneys have families, kids, mortgages, law school loans, etc., and it's absurd to think they should not be paid to pursue criminals. Would you prefer they hadn't taken on this work? If it would make you happier if the original scammers had their full profit while these attorneys worked on something else, you perhaps need to re-examine your priorities and think about what kind of incentive systems you're encouraging.