Wow, that's actually a really good argument. It may be the only good one I've even heard against loser pays.
The insurance company is engaging in some pretty high-risk behavior in this scenario. I'm not sure I believe it would actually happen, but any new loser pays rule would have to take this situation into account.
That's a good thought. It would help things, at least.
I don't really agree with you on unlimited punitive damages though. For that kind of punishment to be exacted on someone, the standard of proof should be "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil cases, it goes by whoever the jury thinks proved their case better. It's 50-50, not innocent until proven guilty.
There's more to say on this "loser pays" question.
Situation: I own a patent. SomeCorp is suspected of violating my patent. I sue. Thanks to their VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources, I lose. Suddenly, I'm not only screwed out of patent protection, I'm bankrupt to boot.
The government awarded you the patent. Then the government setup a court system for you to use to get paid for your patent. Is it too much for the government to ask you in return to be certain your position is correct before you sue?
Patent protection is something that's "awarded" to you. It's a bargain to give you an incentive to invent and commercialize your invention as quickly as possible. You can't be "screwed out" of something you're not morally entitled to in the first place.
And, in a loser pays situation, how can someone have "VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources"? If SomeCorp can spend $5 million on their lawyers, you can spend $5 million on your lawyers. You're going to win. They're going to pay your legal bills.
You are going to win, aren't you? You must be certain, because you brought the lawsuit. If you're not certain, then settle or don't sue at all.
In fact, if 'Loser Pays' was the norm, wouldn't that just influence every corp to take on an oversized legal team for every tort filed against them?
Not every tort. Only the ones where they think the facts are on their side. Only the ones they think they're going to win. The ones they think they're going to lose, they'll settle to minimize their costs.
That's as opposed to the current system, where the defendant tends to settle even when they're 100% right, just to avoid the legal bills.
And no, there's no incentive to take on an oversized legal team. Even if you win, there's no big payoff for having a big legal team, your expenses simply get paid.
Giving "the small guy" a better chance to fight is harmful when "the small guy" is wrong. What's the small guy's incentive to make sure he's not wrong?
The system is setup to maximize legal fees and contingency payments, at the expense of "the big guy". Justice is simply the sales-pitch.
Whatever happens, IBM, Autozone, Chrysler, Novell, Redhat, and OSDN are going to be out a lot of money on legal fees. How is that just? Wouldn't it be better if that money could be spent on something productive?
It's not perfect, but its not a bad system.... But I would still rather see SCO get away with stuff like this, temporarily, than see innocent people/groups/corporations get rushed in/out of a courtroom and denied justice.
SCO is the plaintiff. They started this whole mess. Everyone else was just minding their own business. SCO can't be innocent -- they're the aggressor in this case.
The system is a bad system. It didn't start out that way. It was turned bad.
It can be fixed with a few simple reforms, all of which are bad for the plaintiff and less lucrative for the lawyers, except in slam-dunk cases.
Reforms:
Loser pays
Joint and several liability reform (i.e. you have to be at fault to owe damages, not just rich and in the area)
Punitive damages limits (i.e. no getting rich because you caught someone at something -- get paid for your actual damages and get a job like everyone else)
IP law reform (i.e copyrights go back to 25 or 50 years, and patents only get awarded to inventions)
Then we can all go back to work that helps people instead of sueing and trying to avoid getting sued.
"Stress" is just a limiting factor on productivity.
1000 years ago, people would endure the same amount of "stress", but their reward was simply that they'd be able to eat and live until the next day. Now they're enduring the stress for a nice house and car (or whatever).
[Insert gender-neutral language to this next paragraph as you like -- it just makes it harder to read.] Modern stress is caused by a man's desires. He is willing (or able) to endure a certain amount of stress in order to achieve a lifestyle. If he chooses a less expensive lifestyle, stress is less. If he is unable to endure much stress, that will limit the lifestyle available to him.
(Another part of it is the natural ups and downs of life -- things don't always go your way -- but that factor hasn't changed.)
So no, technology doesn't cause stress. Desires lead to stress.
I believe one of the major religions makes this point as well.
It's easy to find lots of examples of attempts to pass legal reforms -- like class-action reform, loser pays, joint and several liability reform, punitive damage limits, "pain and suffering" damages limits, etc, etc -- that are consistently opposed and obstructed by Democrats because the Democrats have to keep the money flowing to their lawyer friends.
Just look it up -- if you care about reforming the system.
He was making statements about himself. Those are all the credentials he needs. The UCS was making statements about who they want signing their own petition. That is their own business.
I agree. I just don't know if anyone has the proper credentials to establish the point conclusively. I guess we'll all just have to trust our own judgement.
And requiring credentials of someone who is going to cut open your body with a scapel...
But, isn't that my own business?
More to the point, the Union of Concerned Scientists is just a bunch of guys with an opinion, like any other bunch of guys. Sometimes bunches of guys are wrong, no matter how exalted they think they are. Other times not.
Furthermore, in a free democratic society, the positions matter, not the people. If you're going to let experts decide anything (or even unduly influence anything) you're on your way to dictatorship.
It's interesting that so many people dislike this kind of intrusiveness, but they just love the fact that every year you're forced to give up a lot more information on your tax forms. I guess things are different when you benefit from them personally.
It's actually a legitimate question. If credentials are required to make decisions (scientific or otherwise), then that's totalitarian. There's no room for democracy at all.
You said "education and experience" were necessary before someone could provide scientific advice. That standard should apply to you as well. So what are your credentials to determine your ability to make those statements?
And BTW, next time you try to condescend to someone, you might want to check spelling and grammar. It's just more effective. Or just be nice instead and spell things whatever way.
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea. Raise the price of everything.
That will really make it easier for us to compete with India for jobs.
Isn't it time we start thinking for ourselves when dealing with environmental claims?
Sometimes environmental claims are exaggerated or simply untrue. Consider that while you're still allowed to own a computer.
Bigotry, stereotyping, and prejudice are not new.
Wow, that's actually a really good argument. It may be the only good one I've even heard against loser pays.
The insurance company is engaging in some pretty high-risk behavior in this scenario. I'm not sure I believe it would actually happen, but any new loser pays rule would have to take this situation into account.
Who says? If your lawyers agreed you have a slam-dunk case, why wouldn't they agree only to be paid if you win?
If your lawyers don't have confidence in your case, maybe you should settle.
Yes. Though, in fact, this would mean fewer lawsuits. So I'd call it, instead, better.
See the post below where I say that I think it's a good thought to put punitive damages in a fund instead of in the plaintiff's pocket.
See where I also say that I think unlimited punishment should be left to criminal courts, where the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
Um, there were several Babylon 5 movies.
That's a good thought. It would help things, at least.
I don't really agree with you on unlimited punitive damages though. For that kind of punishment to be exacted on someone, the standard of proof should be "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil cases, it goes by whoever the jury thinks proved their case better. It's 50-50, not innocent until proven guilty.
Punishment is best left to criminal courts.
There's more to say on this "loser pays" question.
Situation: I own a patent. SomeCorp is suspected of violating my patent. I sue. Thanks to their VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources, I lose. Suddenly, I'm not only screwed out of patent protection, I'm bankrupt to boot.
The government awarded you the patent. Then the government setup a court system for you to use to get paid for your patent. Is it too much for the government to ask you in return to be certain your position is correct before you sue?
Patent protection is something that's "awarded" to you. It's a bargain to give you an incentive to invent and commercialize your invention as quickly as possible. You can't be "screwed out" of something you're not morally entitled to in the first place.
And, in a loser pays situation, how can someone have "VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources"? If SomeCorp can spend $5 million on their lawyers, you can spend $5 million on your lawyers. You're going to win. They're going to pay your legal bills.
You are going to win, aren't you? You must be certain, because you brought the lawsuit. If you're not certain, then settle or don't sue at all.
In fact, if 'Loser Pays' was the norm, wouldn't that just influence every corp to take on an oversized legal team for every tort filed against them?
Not every tort. Only the ones where they think the facts are on their side. Only the ones they think they're going to win. The ones they think they're going to lose, they'll settle to minimize their costs.
That's as opposed to the current system, where the defendant tends to settle even when they're 100% right, just to avoid the legal bills.
And no, there's no incentive to take on an oversized legal team. Even if you win, there's no big payoff for having a big legal team, your expenses simply get paid.
Then don't sue.
There could be limits on the amount that the loser has to pay. Or you could just win. Or, as I said above, don't sue.
Giving "the small guy" a better chance to fight is harmful when "the small guy" is wrong. What's the small guy's incentive to make sure he's not wrong?
The system is setup to maximize legal fees and contingency payments, at the expense of "the big guy". Justice is simply the sales-pitch.
Whatever happens, IBM, Autozone, Chrysler, Novell, Redhat, and OSDN are going to be out a lot of money on legal fees. How is that just? Wouldn't it be better if that money could be spent on something productive?
It's not perfect, but its not a bad system. ... But I would still rather see SCO get away with stuff like this, temporarily, than see innocent people/groups/corporations get rushed in/out of a courtroom and denied justice.
SCO is the plaintiff. They started this whole mess. Everyone else was just minding their own business. SCO can't be innocent -- they're the aggressor in this case.
The system is a bad system. It didn't start out that way. It was turned bad.
It can be fixed with a few simple reforms, all of which are bad for the plaintiff and less lucrative for the lawyers, except in slam-dunk cases.
Reforms:
Then we can all go back to work that helps people instead of sueing and trying to avoid getting sued.
Southern Lunar Colony?
I'm not sure you're hear the beeping.
The buttons on the deer xing signs in Wisconsin are like that too.
This decision wasn't "handed down". The jury heard the case. They found that IBM didn't do anything wrong.
Specifically, what do you have against the jury that you'd assume they made the wrong decision?
"Stress" is just a limiting factor on productivity.
1000 years ago, people would endure the same amount of "stress", but their reward was simply that they'd be able to eat and live until the next day. Now they're enduring the stress for a nice house and car (or whatever).
[Insert gender-neutral language to this next paragraph as you like -- it just makes it harder to read.]
Modern stress is caused by a man's desires. He is willing (or able) to endure a certain amount of stress in order to achieve a lifestyle. If he chooses a less expensive lifestyle, stress is less. If he is unable to endure much stress, that will limit the lifestyle available to him.
(Another part of it is the natural ups and downs of life -- things don't always go your way -- but that factor hasn't changed.)
So no, technology doesn't cause stress. Desires lead to stress.
I believe one of the major religions makes this point as well.
I thought government researchers were killed when their programs got cancelled.
Turns out, they just go get similar jobs in a similar field. Wow.
The lawyers also hit the jackpot.
It's easy to find lots of examples of attempts to pass legal reforms -- like class-action reform, loser pays, joint and several liability reform, punitive damage limits, "pain and suffering" damages limits, etc, etc -- that are consistently opposed and obstructed by Democrats because the Democrats have to keep the money flowing to their lawyer friends.
Just look it up -- if you care about reforming the system.
Who's trying to pass the reforms? And who's blocking them?
I don't think anyone has any respect for these class-action lawsuits. Why do they still go on?
Money is why we won't get reform as long as Democrats have the power to prevent it.
You're right.
But it still leads me to believe they think that non-degreed persons are unworthy decision makers and ought to do what they're told without question.
I'd rather trust my own judgement.
And for government decisions, I'd rather trust the democratic process.
I agree. I just don't know if anyone has the proper credentials to establish the point conclusively. I guess we'll all just have to trust our own judgement.
And requiring credentials of someone who is going to cut open your body with a scapel ...
But, isn't that my own business?
More to the point, the Union of Concerned Scientists is just a bunch of guys with an opinion, like any other bunch of guys. Sometimes bunches of guys are wrong, no matter how exalted they think they are. Other times not.
Furthermore, in a free democratic society, the positions matter, not the people. If you're going to let experts decide anything (or even unduly influence anything) you're on your way to dictatorship.
It's interesting that so many people dislike this kind of intrusiveness, but they just love the fact that every year you're forced to give up a lot more information on your tax forms. I guess things are different when you benefit from them personally.
It's actually a legitimate question. If credentials are required to make decisions (scientific or otherwise), then that's totalitarian. There's no room for democracy at all.
You said "education and experience" were necessary before someone could provide scientific advice. That standard should apply to you as well. So what are your credentials to determine your ability to make those statements?
And BTW, next time you try to condescend to someone, you might want to check spelling and grammar. It's just more effective. Or just be nice instead and spell things whatever way.