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."
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds like "loser pays" which is similar to the UK. The concept being that the entity bringing the lawsuit ends up paying all court fees if they lose the battle. It has less to do with India being more Democratic and more to do with India setting up their system to keep people from bringing frivolous lawsuits. "Loser pays" keeps people from suing about every little thing since they end up having to pay if the suit is found to be without merit and hence they "lose".
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:3, Interesting)
You can theoretically sue for legal expenses after you have successfully won the first case, but in reality most people don't because the burden of proof then lies on their shoulders. In order to win legal fees in the US you have to prove intent to harm.
Re:Headline (Score:1, Interesting)
Not always. There are some offenses called "cognizable" and "non-bailable". For example, practicing untouchability. Anyone can make a complaint and th accused would need to prove innocence. At least, I think that's so. IANAL.
Re:Im torn (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see anything in that to be torn over.
The court's ruling does not prevent MS from pursuing its claims, particularly if they are legitimate. It does say that MS cannot try to deny the defendants their right to a fair trial. Even a guilty party has that right.
There is only a dilema if you believe you have reason to choose sides between the alleged pirates or MS. Why do you think you need to choose sides? If the alleged pirates are guilty, but also MS is trying to bully them, then both are wrong. On the other hand, while there is piracy in India, you don't know that these particular allegations are true.
That's the point of a fair trial. The rules shouldn't favor either side, so there is no need to take a side. All you have to decide to evaluate the merits of this ruling, is whether it makes the playing field more level or less so.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Interesting)
not the OP
But imagine you sue Microsoft for a small amount of money for, say, voiding your registration after updating a graphics card. MS, in their defense spends tens of thousands of dollars preparing to defend the case (this is not unrealistic, their corporate lawyers are already collecting a salary, now they're just billing their time against your case. Microsoft parades a few expert witnesses in front of the judge (or jury) and successfully confuses them. They rule against you - now you're on the hook for a huge legal bill.
Loser pays disincentivizes bringing law suits against big players. That is not to say our system is necessarily preferable, both systems have their pros and cons.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, it would stop me from bringing a suit. Even though I feel I have a good case, and even if there are very good odds i'd win, there is no such thing as a sure thing and the threat of having to pay no only my laywer fees but the oppositions is enough to deter me.
It wouldn't deter a major corporation though.
Re:Headline (Score:3, Interesting)
well, it seams highly unlikely they could get this ummmm "deposit" back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India#Judiciary [wikipedia.org] Seams very likely this payment would guarantee the defendants never get their day in court, only bled out and locked up. While it is a admiral statement by the Judge, it probably is just like any politician the stated intent is exactly the opposite as the reality of the plan.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:5, Interesting)
"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.
Yes you are undoubtedly correct. Case in point: when my wife and I sued Paypal, and the judge threw it out based on jurisdiction and on our supposedly having given up our right to sue in under any circumstances by signing Paypal's user agreement. It cost us less than $100 to file the suit. Had we had to pay for Paypal's lawyer, that would have prevented us from suing. And this wasn't a frivolous lawsuit - even that judge agreed that Paypal had clearly stolen our money, and their lawyer didn't dispute that either.
In theory a case like this one should have been a criminal case rather than civil, but there isn't always someone interested in prosecuting, even when a crime has clearly been committed. (Another anecdotal example, though not involving a corporation: my grandfather died of a head injury under very strange circumstances, and the DMV agreed that the person who wound up with most of his assets had forged the title on his sports car. But my grandmother was unable to get a criminal case opened, even for a crime of that severity.)
When the perpetrator is a corporation that can afford gazillion dollar lawyers, loser pays protects the corporation even when they are clearly guilty.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:1, Interesting)
One fair limitation is to make it so that you never have to pay more for the other side than you paid for yourself.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:3, Interesting)
In any sane implementation of a "loser pays" system, the loser is liable for "reasonable" costs (which may be less than the actual costs) as determined by a judge.
In other words, if your opponent spent $1M on their defence, but the judge determined that a fair cost would be $2K, that's what you'd be on the hook for.
Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score:3, Interesting)
I can find plenty of information about the firing of the reporters [wikipedia.org], but am having difficulty finding a succinct account of the subsequent lawsuit brought by the station against the reporter.