Microsoft Fined In India For Using "Money Power" Against Pirates 204
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."
Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps 'Using "Money Power" Against Suspected / Accused Pirates' or just plain "Against Defendants" would be more representative?
Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad that lawsuits and prosecutions are about winning and losing, not about finding out the truth.
Re:Headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Is "innocent until proven guilty" a tenet of Indian law? I'd imagine it is, but not sure.
Re:Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps 'Using "Money Power" Against Suspected / Accused Pirates' or just plain "Against Defendants" would be more representative?
Hmm... representative. I remember reading about what happened in the 18th century in several countries when the courts were used predominantly as a tool for the rich. There was a rather pronounced change in government in several countries, notably France and the USA. It was messy, and all that perfectly good tea went to waste.
Re:Very Poor Taste (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Re:Very Poor Taste (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Insightful)
"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.
Re:Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad. They even view this as correct behavior in the U.S.
It's a large part of the reason our justice system is broken with regard to the wealthy and powerful and corporations.
It's a large part of how RIAA succeeds. They just sue you to death until you are out of money and can't defend yourself.
Re:Jurisdictional Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a chance. Look at their caste system and how little representation the lower castes (millions of people) have. America is far from perfect but you are making an entirely unfair statement. Informative my ass.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:3, Insightful)
. For instance, the Delhi High Court has a backlog of 466 years according to its chief justice.[1] This is despite the average processing time of four minutes and 55 seconds in the court. [wikipedia.org]
see MS will never see this money back, because the pirates will be locked up until their day in court (year 2455) awaiting trial.
So if by democratic, you mean corporation and money wins, then yes this seams 400 years ahead of USA.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Insightful)
Suppose that a faulty MegaCorp device burns Middle Class Joe's house to the ground. Joe tries to sue MegaCorp, but all he can afford is an average lawyer working on contingency. MegaCorp sends the dream team. If Joe wins, then MegaCorp has to pay him and his average lawyer. Sounds good: Joe gets more money. But if he loses, MegaCorp bankrupts him because even though his own lawyer is working on contingency, he has to pay MegaCorp's dream team. This provides a strong disincentive to bring suit.
It's even worse if the defendant automatically pays when losing. In this case, if the MAFIAA sues you, you defend yourself and you lose, you'll have to pay not only the ridiculous statutory damages, but also attorney's fees.
Of course, there are ways to fix this. The most obvious way is for the judge to have discretion on whether the loser pays, but caps on the fees might work almost as well.
Re:India is sooo into equality (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure if you lend the Indians your time machine, they can go back in time and fix that issue. Until then, I guess they'll have to just live with outlawing caste discrimination in the constitution and then slowly working to change public attitudes.
Or perhaps you've discovered a way to fix the issue with smug off-topic one-liners?
Do tell. I eagerly await your insight into the issue.
-Laxitive
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Insightful)