Microsoft Fined In India For Using "Money Power" Against Pirates 204
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the somebody-forward-this-to-the-riaa dept.
from the somebody-forward-this-to-the-riaa dept.
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."
Jurisdictional Problem (Score:5, Informative)
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:Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Headline (Score:1, Informative)
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.
Not as it seems... (Score:5, Informative)
They were not “fined”.
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:Very Poor Taste (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Informative)
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:Very Poor Taste (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Headline (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognizable_offence [wikipedia.org]
"pleasurable to see them rapped for it" (Score:4, Informative)
Hoyee Hoyee Hoyee Hoyee
The beat box is back on. Commence.
Re:Oh Pleazzze... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:2, Informative)
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:Headline (Score:4, Informative)
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 [cua.edu]
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Headline (Score:3, Informative)