And that would simply triple the cost of the tank. Anytime you put the risk on a contractor the contractor will charge you the value of that risk (and more) even if it does not happen.
No thanks. "Loser pays" is great for billionaires but ruinous for everyone else.
Ok, how about this scenario. You invent something and show it to a corporation. They say no thanks but steal the idea and make millions off of it. They clearly violated your idea so you take them to court. Without loser pays awards, the corporation can simply perform appeal after appeal and delay tactics until you give up because you ran out of money.
Clearly in this case loser pays would serve justice where in a shared cost system only the rich win.
Loser pays means poor people can't afford to sue rich people, because they won't be able to afford an expensive lawyer like the rich person can (so they're less likely to win) and the if they lose the risk is a lot higher for them. It's not a big deal for Google to pay for Boring's lawyer, but the other way around is a big deal. It would create a strong disincentive for little people to sue mega-corporations, even when the mega-corporation was clearly in the wrong, and it wouldn't cut down on senseless lawsuits by wealthy people/corporations because they could afford to pay for the other sides lawyer. Forcing the side with more income/assets to pay for the other sides lawyer, if they initiated the case and lost, makes sense.
Your logic makes perfect sense if you are arguung FOR loser pays. How could a poor person possibly sue anyone with money when that person can tie up the legal process with appeals until the plaintiff runs out of money and is forced to drop the suit? If he knew he was right, it wouldn't cost him anything to sue.
The possibility of a rich person buying a verdict with better lawyers is there regardless of who pays.
Not what I meant. In most lawsuits I firmly believe that the loser should pay all costs on both sides. Someone getting unjustly brought to court and/or sued, where the charges are false, and proven false in court shouldn't have to be out of pocket a single dime.
If this approach was taken there would be a lot less stupid lawsuits in the world.
Yes that is a bad extreme example. The same as if you claimed the same harm to you if I shone a flashlight on you or shot you with a high powered laser.
It would be really cool and appropriate if the Google lawyer swallowed the dollar, then fished it out of the toilet the next day and sent that dollar. Now *that* would be justice served.
Yes people live along the border (Where I live is actually the same latitude as southern Oregon) but it's not because the rest of the country is frozen tundra or that there is no trees. Historically, the towns are along the south because of the great lakes waterway for shipping, and out west it's because thats where the east-west railway was run.
Summer is warm and winter is cold, but to say no-one lives in most of Canada because it is frozen is absurd.
Your comments on Russia are similarly false. Tundra in Russia is an extremely small fraction of the available land mass.
Yea, I live in Canada, and I don't live anywhere near the tundra. And yes thank you I know what it is.
Ever look at a map of the tundra? It is in the extreme far north of Canada. The suggestion that the majority of Canada is 'frozen tundra' as you suggest is clearly false. Also, Greenland is much farther north than the majority of Canada.
I'm not sure where you went to school but geography doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Canada and Russia don't have as much open space as you think they do. Many people seem to forget that much of their land is frozen tundra, which is totally unusable for habitation.
Oh please - give me a break... Are you one of these people that thinks it snows here year round? Like that couple I saw once with skiis on their roof (in July) asking how far north they had to drive before they hit snow.
I don't think anyone would blame Bush for the actual storm, but he is responsible for the sheer incompetence in the clean up effort. The fundamental fact is they rebuilt the entirety of Europe after WWII faster than they rebuilt New Orleans. New Orleans relief was a complete fuckup and the blame goes right to the top.
Slashdot Mirror
And that would simply triple the cost of the tank. Anytime you put the risk on a contractor the contractor will charge you the value of that risk (and more) even if it does not happen.
No thanks. "Loser pays" is great for billionaires but ruinous for everyone else.
Ok, how about this scenario. You invent something and show it to a corporation. They say no thanks but steal the idea and make millions off of it. They clearly violated your idea so you take them to court. Without loser pays awards, the corporation can simply perform appeal after appeal and delay tactics until you give up because you ran out of money.
Clearly in this case loser pays would serve justice where in a shared cost system only the rich win.
The PowerPC is not cancelled - it's used in lots of things and actively being developed.
Loser pays means poor people can't afford to sue rich people, because they won't be able to afford an expensive lawyer like the rich person can (so they're less likely to win) and the if they lose the risk is a lot higher for them. It's not a big deal for Google to pay for Boring's lawyer, but the other way around is a big deal. It would create a strong disincentive for little people to sue mega-corporations, even when the mega-corporation was clearly in the wrong, and it wouldn't cut down on senseless lawsuits by wealthy people/corporations because they could afford to pay for the other sides lawyer. Forcing the side with more income/assets to pay for the other sides lawyer, if they initiated the case and lost, makes sense.
Your logic makes perfect sense if you are arguung FOR loser pays. How could a poor person possibly sue anyone with money when that person can tie up the legal process with appeals until the plaintiff runs out of money and is forced to drop the suit? If he knew he was right, it wouldn't cost him anything to sue.
The possibility of a rich person buying a verdict with better lawyers is there regardless of who pays.
Of course. Obvious statement.
Not what I meant. In most lawsuits I firmly believe that the loser should pay all costs on both sides. Someone getting unjustly brought to court and/or sued, where the charges are false, and proven false in court shouldn't have to be out of pocket a single dime.
If this approach was taken there would be a lot less stupid lawsuits in the world.
Yes that is a bad extreme example. The same as if you claimed the same harm to you if I shone a flashlight on you or shot you with a high powered laser.
This is one of the rare cases that I agree that loser pays is unfair
Google was probably wrong but it was a *mistake*. The fine was appropriate.
It would be really cool and appropriate if the Google lawyer swallowed the dollar, then fished it out of the toilet the next day and sent that dollar. Now *that* would be justice served.
Loser should always pay..
You should read this
Read this for the reality of the wild west.
I never said that. But the west where the sheriff was shot and the gangs ran the town is complete hollywood.
You do realize that the lawless wild west as depicted in the movies never really happened,..
No, they are a modern day equivalent of the IRA.
That's because they are WRONG and are breaking the law.
It must be a strange world where selling 135,000 (more than 3 times as many) is "not much better" than 40,000 units.
That's interesting as the Blackberry Torch (love it!!) sold 150000 on it's opening weekend launch and analysts called that disappointing.
Just because I use Windows on my desktop doesn't mean I want it on my phone.
Yes people live along the border (Where I live is actually the same latitude as southern Oregon) but it's not because the rest of the country is frozen tundra or that there is no trees. Historically, the towns are along the south because of the great lakes waterway for shipping, and out west it's because thats where the east-west railway was run.
Summer is warm and winter is cold, but to say no-one lives in most of Canada because it is frozen is absurd.
Your comments on Russia are similarly false. Tundra in Russia is an extremely small fraction of the available land mass.
Sex doesn't only mean intercourse. Sex is also simply sexual.
Yea, I live in Canada, and I don't live anywhere near the tundra. And yes thank you I know what it is.
Ever look at a map of the tundra? It is in the extreme far north of Canada. The suggestion that the majority of Canada is 'frozen tundra' as you suggest is clearly false. Also, Greenland is much farther north than the majority of Canada.
I'm not sure where you went to school but geography doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Figuring out how to build a 1 km tower on a floating platform is left as an exercise to the reader.
Sounds like they just stole the floating city idea from Stargate Atlantis..
Canada and Russia don't have as much open space as you think they do. Many people seem to forget that much of their land is frozen tundra, which is totally unusable for habitation.
Oh please - give me a break... Are you one of these people that thinks it snows here year round? Like that couple I saw once with skiis on their roof (in July) asking how far north they had to drive before they hit snow.
To blame Bush for Katrina is a straw man argument
I don't think anyone would blame Bush for the actual storm, but he is responsible for the sheer incompetence in the clean up effort. The fundamental fact is they rebuilt the entirety of Europe after WWII faster than they rebuilt New Orleans. New Orleans relief was a complete fuckup and the blame goes right to the top.