Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Reading your comment here makes it clear that you won't be convinced by any form of logic, but hopefully it helps some other readers:

> Unless the lawyers Google spends billions on can convince the judge that those expenses were reasonably necessary to effectively prosecute the case -- and, incidentally, lawyers that are more proficient at convincing judges that their fees are reasonable will, have higher fees.

This has never ever happened and will never ever happen for blatantly obvious reasons. If you think judges can be convinced of such ridiculous ideas by a sufficiently high paid lawyers we better just throw the whole legal system out of the window.

> Loser pays is a method of disincentivizing filing suits in general (it increases the expected costs for the plaintiff, particularly) as well as tilting the balance toward deeper-pockets litigants generally.

This is incorrect. Loser pays disincentivizes meritless lawsuits. If the plaintiff thinks he will lose, then the expected amount he has to pay is higher in a loser pays system. If the plaintiff thinks he will win the expected amount he will pay is lower in a loser pays system. Therefore loser pays incentivizes reasonable lawsuits compared to the US system.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: