Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft The Almighty Buck The Courts News

Microsoft Fined In India For Using "Money Power" Against Pirates 204

Posted by Soulskill
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Fined In India For Using "Money Power" Against Pirates

Comments Filter:
  • Headline (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lemming Mark (849014) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:09PM (#30434848) Homepage

    Perhaps 'Using "Money Power" Against Suspected / Accused Pirates' or just plain "Against Defendants" would be more representative?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lwsimon (724555)

      Is "innocent until proven guilty" a tenet of Indian law? I'd imagine it is, but not sure.

      • Re:Headline (Score:4, Informative)

        by westlake (615356) on Monday December 14, 2009 @07:01PM (#30437676)

        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:5, Informative)

      by CSHARP123 (904951) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:13PM (#30434906)
      Exactly, India adheres to principle of Innocent until proven Guilty. /. headline already calls the defendent Pirate. Judge Siding the pirate makes no sense. Judge has not ruled on the case yet. He is making an observation on the MS tactics of filing case in a different jurisdiction when they can file in the jurisdiction where the alleged infringment has happened. Commened the Judge for taking this stand. As usual, MS where ever they go, wouldn't change their lousy tactics.
      • Re:Headline (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:32PM (#30435130)

        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:Headline (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nefarious Wheel (628136) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:15PM (#30434916) Journal

      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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by digitig (1056110)

        It was messy, and all that perfectly good tea went to waste.

        We never sent our good tea to America!

        • by natehoy (1608657)

          You mean Lipton isn't the pinnacle of tea-making civilization? It gets BETTER? ;)

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          Maybe that's why we threw it in the Atlantic and now vastly prefer coffee. ;)
        • I can believe that. Most Americans think that Lipton's blend of black and orange pekoe is real tea. If Lipton's tea was thrown in the harbor, then nothing was lost after all. To get some REAL tea around here is almost impossible. If I do find some, they want a week's wages for a pound of tea. There's something wrong with this whole picture.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by lena_10326 (1100441)
            Most Americans don't drink hot tea (which is what Lipton is primarily identified with). But even still, haven't you been to the tea aisle in a US market lately? It's exploded with numerous varieties including imports. Lipton is 1 choice among dozens.
        • Re:Headline (Score:4, Funny)

          by locofungus (179280) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @05:42AM (#30442184)

          Not only did we not send our good tea, we used to tax them on it. It was no wonder they were unhappy.

          Eventually, we realized that this was a bit unfair so we stopped taxing it. This was an anathema to the Americans, "How dare the British NOT tax our tea" so they threw it all into the sea. "Take that you British scum, we WILL be taxed".

          The majority of the British, realizing that people who LIKED taxes were alien beyond comprehension (throwing good tea into the sea would also be incomprehensible but it's not clear whether or not the Americans realized that the tea they did discard was undrinkable anyway), quickly decided to kick them out of the Empire.

          This was not easy to do. The same people who if you say "Hey, we'd like to reduce the taxes you pay" scream "NOOOOOO!!!" are hardly likely to go quietly when you tell them "We'd like you out of the Empire" so "a cunning plan" was hatched. We'd pretend we didn't want them to go (actually dear George was a bit simple and it's suspected that he didn't have to pretend) and, with a bit of subterfuge and intrigue, we could get those "onion wearing, garlic eating frogs" to "help" get rid ^W^Wthem gain their independence.

          This has worked well, albeit for a brief 250 years, but it's starting to crumble. You now hear Americans using phrases like "cheese eating surrender monkeys" when talking about our close friends across the channel. Before you know it they'll be demanding lower taxes and heaven forbid that they might want to become the 55th member of the Commonwealth. Woe is me.

          Tim.

          Waiting with bated breath to see how this gets modded ;-)

    • So essentially Microsoft sought a "Change of Venue" and was fined 16K? Buwahahaha! I wonder what was on Judge Judy today, maybe Slashdot's gonna start reporting that too...
  • by fdrebin (846000) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:11PM (#30434870)
    In theory that's the way it is, but in practice, most of the time you need a lot of money to deal with legal matters.

    Too bad that lawsuits and prosecutions are about winning and losing, not about finding out the truth.

    /F

    • by L0rdJedi (65690) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:17PM (#30434948)

      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".

      • by paiute (550198) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:26PM (#30435038)

        "Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.

        • "Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.

          Did your boss walk by or something? Please expand on that a little.

          • by NoYob (1630681) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:54PM (#30435330)

            "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.

            • by uglyduckling (103926) on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:05PM (#30435434) Homepage

              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.

              • by Urza9814 (883915)

                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).

                Actually there's quite a bit of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the US as well. Mostly disability and general social security cases though. And I would imagine they pre-screen the cases pretty heavily to make sure they're going to win them before they take it. But still, they do exist.

                • by AK Marc (707885)
                  Actually there's quite a bit of "no win, no fee" lawyers in the US as well.

                  You don't want those lawyers. Trust me. Unless it's a class action, you'll be much worse off with them. Generally they won't take the case unless it's a guaranteed win, then they do as little as possible to win it, often advising you to take an inferior settlement, pretending it's in your best interest because they get to move to the next one. Settling 10 cases a week is better money than litigating one every two weeks.
              • by Zerth (26112)

                Except where you are sure you'll win, but run out of money before the case is over and your lawyer isn't willing or unable to work for free temporarily, even with a guaranteed payoff in the end, so you lose and go into debt.

              • We're bemoaning the fees the lawyers charge in a dire situation of the client, similar to healthcare fees doctors charge in a dire situation of their patient. It's a sort of blackmailing that appears almost naturally.
                If there were a legal system where individual defendants could defend themselves without lawyers, such as Socrates could(he still lost the case, it's still up to others(judge or jury) to interpret whatever the laws are, what is moral or just), so if people could defend themselves without lawye
            • by canajin56 (660655) on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:11PM (#30435512)
              That's how it already works though. Judges can award attorneys fees, though they tend to reserve this for awarding large corporations their legal fees, not individuals. For example, a Fox reporter was fired because his boss told him "I like that bit about bovine growth hormones, but we're sponsored by Monsanto, so change your conclusion to say that it's perfectly harmless", and he refused to lie on TV. A judge held that not only does Fox have a right to fire for refusing to outright lie on TV, but he found the lawsuit so DISGUSTING of an assault on free speech that he awarded Fox 2 million to cover their legal fees.
            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Caity (140482)

              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

          • by AndersOSU (873247) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:55PM (#30435338)

            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.

            • by corbettw (214229)

              If it means people won't bring stupid ass lawsuits (like, say, over a graphics card worth at most $200) then I'm all in favor of us adopting this system.

              • Sir, if a company voided the warranty on your graphics card for applying an official update with no warning ahead of time that said update would void your warranty that is not a stupid ass lawsuit. The company just broke an agreement with you and likely millions of other people that would total up to be worth quite a bit of money.

                An injustice to one person may seem small and frivolous at first but when you factor in that said injustice likely happens to other people as well then I think you see my point. Th

                • by corbettw (214229)

                  The case to which you're referring resulted in the woman receiving third degree burns from the coffee. That's not hot, that's scalding, and McDonald's deserved to be sued over it.

                  • That's one opinion. 3rd degree burns involve the destruction of underlying muscle and tissue. I've seen a lot of scalds in my life, NONE of which were 3rd degree. I've seen a man burnt with live steam, which most definitely WAS 3rd degree. I've seen people burnt from gasoline and gunpowder explosions, some of which were 3rd degree, others weren't.

                    I've read several accounts of that case, and my most honest opinion is, the old lady hired some good lawyers. I don't believe that she suffered 3rd degree bur

            • by mjwx (966435)

              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.

              No, loser pays disincentives frivolous law suits.

              But imagine you sue Microsoft for a small amount of money for, say, voiding your registration after updating a graphics card.

              This is frivolous and not welcome in a court of law, this one is reserved for organisations such as the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) who's mandate

          • by plague3106 (71849) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:56PM (#30435352)

            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.

          • by wirelessbuzzers (552513) on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:18PM (#30435608)

            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.

            • by AK Marc (707885)
              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.

              I've seen it suggested here to cap the fees at the lowest teams fees. I don't know how that would work with two groups on contingency, but it would be an idea to limit what the little guy pays.
            • Public insurance for lawsuits. Government pays your lawyer unconditionally. you have your OWN choice of lawyer. It can be easily paid for by just cutting billions of foreign aid to Israel and raising the top tax bracket to 75%.

            • by mjwx (966435)

              Suppose that a faulty MegaCorp device burns Middle Class Joe's house to the ground.

              Is this known to be the cause of the fire?

              Case 1: investigators say yes. MegaCorp pays MC Joe's fee's.
              Case 2: investigators say no. MC Joe should not have been suing in the first place, he must pay fee's.

              This system cuts down on the amount of frivolous law suits, which is a good thing(TM). Firstly it's a huge disincentive to launch a case based on flimsy evidence. Secondly the amount one can be forced to pay can be c

        • by shadowofwind (1209890) on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:26PM (#30435678)

          "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.

      • by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical@@@gmail...com> on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:14PM (#30435544) Homepage

        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.

        • by PRMan (959735)
          This is exactly what I think. Loser pays the lesser of the 2 legal bills to the winner. If the individual wins with his country lawyer, he gets his legal fees back and it costs him nothing. If large megacorporation wins, the individual is still punished by paying double HIS legal fees, but he is probably not bankrupted by this.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by alexo (9335)

          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: (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.

    • by Lord Ender (156273) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:33PM (#30435138) Homepage

      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.

      • by Shakrai (717556)

        Slashdot has the the worst form of moderation system, except all the others that have been tried.

        I love that sig. Congrats for combining Churchill with a snark towards /. :)

      • How about a system where all legal aid is supplied say by the state. This could then be combined with a form of "loser pays" or giving the legal representation for free. Essentially everyone would then get the same lawyers no matter who they are, the number and quality of the lawyers given to both sides could be decided based on the importance of the case to society.

        I think the drawbacks to such a system are pretty obvious, you put all of the legal power in the hands of the state and it would cost everyo
        • by AK Marc (707885)
          There are systems like this. The US has an adversarial system. You are at war with the other side. If both are vigorous and play by certain rules (like disclosure) then it is assumed the truth will be reached. However, there are systems where both sides are tasked with finding the truth, rather than fighting each other. They are all supposed to work together to the same goal. In practice, you either have the government forcing its dogma on all, or an adversarial system with a nice coat of paint.
      • 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!

        Oh, it can be done much simpler: require that lawyers on both sides are provided by the state (and thus payed the same), and picked randomly. Naturally, allow picked lawyers to excuse themselves if they consider to have a conflict of interest, and perhaps also allow parties to "re-roll" once or twice if they really don't like the initial pick. No private expensive lawyers, nor consultations.

        • require that lawyers on both sides are provided by the state

          ...that actually creates a conflict of interest in any case where the state has an interest in one side of the case.

          • ...that actually creates a conflict of interest in any case where the state has an interest in one side of the case.

            Not if you go with the same model as used for e.g. BBC funding - where the organization is funded by the state, but isn't otherwise accountable to it. If, furthermore, the amount of funding is mandated by the law, with no option for the government to easily reduce it, and with no way to affect the payout to specific lawyers, I think it would work. At least, it certainly sounds much easier to prevent and spot undesired entangling here than to enforce impartiality in cases where each side gets defense that i

      • 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.

        What are these unavoidable expenses? Are any of them not self imposed by the legal industry?

  • by phantomcircuit (938963) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:13PM (#30434898) Homepage

    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by t0p (1154575)
      I don't agree that this is just a jurisdictional matter. This is about the fact that the judge thinks Microsoft filed suit in the capital to make it too expensive for the defendants to contest the case.
  • Not as it seems... (Score:5, Informative)

    by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:26PM (#30435032) Journal

    They were not “fined”.

    Delhi High Court has asked Microsoft Corporation to shell out Rs 800,000 ($16,000) for choosing to
    fight four copyright violation cases in the Indian capital even though they originated in other cities.

    ...but if you read on...

    Microsoft said it was fighting the cases in Delhi as it has its office in the national capital.

    But the court told Microsoft if it wanted the cases to be heard here, it would have to deposit a sum of Rs 200,000 per case - as a cost security.

    The amount will be kept with the registrar general of the Delhi High Court till the final disposal of the four cases. It will be given to the defendants if the cases are found to be false.

    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.

  • India has the best judges money can buy.
  • '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.'

    If that quote had any actual truth to it, politics across the globe would be a lot different. It isn't, so it probably isn't. :-(

    Good statement, though.

  • Making its copyright laws more cut and dry. The problem with a loser pays system is that corporations like Microsoft can pay for $500/hour attorneys. Even if it were statutorally limited to "reasonable expenses," a loser pays system can destroy someone pretty quickly which can create real hardship for people who lose or forfeit, but aren't objectively guilty.

    What I found interesting about reading the law books of the Old Testament is how many criminal offenses they cover (basically the same as most U.S. sta

    • Judge can summarily sentence the witness on the spot and drop the charges against the accused.

      As I recall, the judge would be allowed to sentence the falsely-testifying witness according to what the false witness was trying to get the defendent accused of.... so, if the false witness said he saw so and so steal 50 shekels of silver and it turns out the witness was lying, the witness could be sentenced as if he had stolen 50 shekels of silver.

      I could be wrong about that, I haven't read those sections of the OT in a while, but that's what I seem to remember.

      And lest someone come with the "eye for an e

  • It seems to me from this report that law in India is superior to law in the US. I never would have thought that to be possible. Now we need to get courts in America to protect the poor and the working classes. Go figure!

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:56PM (#30435362)
    Pbbbhh... chi. Pbbbhh pbbbh chi. Pbbbhh... chi. P'pbbbhh pbbbh chi.
    Hoyee Hoyee Hoyee Hoyee
    The beat box is back on. Commence.

Forty two.

Working...