Google Spent $100M Defending Viacom Lawsuit 153
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Lawsuits are never cheap, even if you're on the winning side. But not many cost as much as Viacom's lawsuit against Google. The search giant won before trial, and even so Google spent $100 million defending themselves. Incidentally, Viacom is appealing the ruling, so it's not even over yet. Perhaps it's no wonder our rights are vanishing online when it takes $100M to protect just one of them."
A possible fix: (Score:5, Insightful)
On all matters regarding intellectual properties, only public defenders may represent both parties.
And move to a non-profit court system. Some jurisdictions figured out they could attract dollars by being attractive venues for lawsuits.
Other interesting monies (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the data is published somewhere or is simply waiting to be compiled, but I would like to know how much was spent lobbying for the DMCA in the first place. This figure can then be compared with the money spent defending. Those numbers could then be used to show how much money was wasted on this and similar laws that offers negative net benefit to those whose copyrights are being "protected."
As we know, belief trumps fact. It has been widely believed to be true until studies have proven it to be true. So perhaps such a study would be an exercise in futility, but perhaps before MORE stupid laws and treaties are put into place, these sorts of facts need to come out into the open to show the world what is really going on and who is really benefiting. Turns out that the individual people aren't benefiting (we already knew that) but the parties allegedly being defended aren't benefiting either. The courts systems are being burdened and tied up as well. It's all a tremendous waste and the only beneficiaries are the lawyers behind it all.
a legion of lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
litigating laws that should not exist in the first place
a kind parasitism, that we are all paying for
legal cruft, created by lawyers, in the service of paying lawyers and keeping them busy, but adding nothing whatsoever to society or the common good, serving to do nothing but waste other people's money and time and keep a bunch of pointless people buried under paperwork
what do these people create?
i'd like one of these lawyers in cases as pathetic and pointless as this to actually try to defend their useless existence
how can they wake up in the morning and not put a shotgun in their mouths, so utterly without any redeeming quality is their useless existence?
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ask Phil Zimmerman (Score:3, Insightful)
He should have used the 2nd amendment [xkcd.com] instead ;)
Re:A possible fix: (Score:3, Insightful)
The cost is primarily the hourly rate for lawyers, not travel expenses. This case barely even saw the inside of a courtroom. Teleconference maybe could have saved a few thousand, maybe even a few hundred thousand, but not any significant percentage.
Re: Repay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Florida has an answer to appeals trials. One is required to post the sum awarded by the lower court as well as a hefty fee to appear before an appeal court. Since it takes three or four years to get to trial as a rule the lost interest on the money as well as the build up of ongoing legal fees generally rules out any hope of an appeal trial giving relief. Then just to put the frosting on the cake the superior court often rules that the case must be kicked down to the first level and decided from scratch all over again. Then it takes another year to get back to court and get a ruling and there is no guarantee that the case will not be appealed a second time. This turns into a case lasting for fifteen years with expenses so great that the person fighting the uphill side of the battle will drown before it is over
First of all, any post beginning with "Florida has an answer" should send you running for the hills. I've dealt with the State of Florida on a few small issues, and it's how I'd like my justice dealt.
More seriously, the problem with this approach is that it has a condition that ensures that someone will "drown fighting the uphill side". In general, any time there's a condition where one party can be "drowned" fighting for their legal rights, you can be certain that the drowning will overwhelmingly be done by those least able to afford the lawyers. It won't necessarily correlate to justice. I think we'd all be better off trying to come up with legal systems that work better for everyone, rather than legal systems that shaft one party in various circumstances.
Re:A possible fix: (Score:3, Insightful)
It could have taken the profitability for the town though.
Re:Legal ridiculousness (Score:5, Insightful)
Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training.
Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training because laws are written by lawyers. So long as that's the case, law-makers will never do in one paragraph what they could stretch to a thousand pages.
Re:Legal ridiculousness (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A possible fix: (Score:4, Insightful)
Better solution: make better laws, appoint better judges.
I kind of hate when you get a problem that stems from people doing stupid things and everyone runs around trying to figure out how to rejigger the system to make stupid things impossible. There is no systematic way to stop stupid greedy corrupt people from wreaking havoc. You can come up with systems that will diminish the amount of damage any one stupid greedy corrupt person can do, but that's about it. If you let stupid greedy corrupt people stay in charge, they'll still wreak havoc.
Re:Legal ridiculousness (Score:3, Insightful)
I would accept your premise if thousand-page-long laws written by lawyers had no ridiculous holes or unforeseen consequences.
--Jeremy
Re:Legal ridiculousness (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with highly skilled people charging top dollar. The problem is that I cannot hire an unskilled lawyer to take my case.
If I want to hire a random guy off the street who is willing to represent me for $50/hr., so be it. It is my fault for choosing to use his services in the first place if something goes horribly wrong. Or maybe he will actually be really good at the work it and I will have saved a fortune.
I recall reading about a case where a lawyer got into a lot of trouble for practising without the bar. What was most notable is that the article said he was really good at what he did. Why is the bar even necessary in cases like that? The bar does not have to be eliminated for those who want to have credentials to back up their services. That is how the free market is supposed to work.
Re:Ask Phil Zimmerman (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
When elephants fight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a legion of lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, we've reached the point where the legal system is so inaccessible (due both to cost and time) that it is not practical as a way to solve problems either. Its legitimacy is basically inertia; right now, if someone screws you, in nearly every case you just have to take it and move on, as suing will cost you more than it is worth. If someone with a large bankroll sues you (or even threatens to, or even could possibly do so if you're contemplating something they might object to), in nearly every case you just have to give in, as defending it will cost more than it is worth. Thus there ain't no justice. Eventually people will start realizing this and violence over such disputes will go on the rise.
Re:looser pays (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's say I cause you harm of $10,000. You sue me, and win $10,000 plus your $10M of lawyer fees. You could have won with much cheaper lawyers, but you overpaid because you thought I'd be the one paying for them. Why am I liable for you overpaying your lawyers?
Money better spent elsewere (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A possible fix: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the US legal system is wonderful...if you happen to be a lawyer.
And guess the number one profession of pre-election representatives to be?