This goes for patent trolling, too, obviously.
There should be a healthy fear of filing baseless legal challenges. Disbarment? Large fines? What's the effective remedy here, that doesn't go so far it dissuades legitimate cases?
Since I don't think not being tilted enough in favor of wealthy litigants is a real problem with the US system, I'm completely opposed to this method of deforming the system.
Also, empirically, there are a whole lot more frivolous lawsuits in the US. In many cases, like with patents, this is basically extortion enabled by the legal system. We sue you which means that you will have to spend at least $10000 on your defense even if you win, or we can settle for $1000.
There is a reason why virtually all modern democracies except the US use loser pays.
"Frivolous" is not an objective descriptor and, therefore, this is not a statement which can be made empirically. At any rate, a higher rate of meritless lawsuits is an intentionally-accepted cost of minimizing the disincentive to pursue potentially meritorious lawsuits.
This is a value difference between the USA and countries that use loser pays.
> If I do a lawsuit against Google and they spend $10 billion on it then I don't need to pay then $10 billion.
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.
> There is a reason why virtually all modern democracies except the US use loser pays.
Yes, becaue most modern democracies value avoidance of private legal action more and effective venue of redress of legitimate disputes less than the US. 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.
> 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.
Not as plaintiff, where there own legal costs are less than the amount at issue.
As a defendant, maybe, or a plaintiff in a case where the costs of prosecution outweigh the potential recovery, yes. (The former is clearly undesirable, the latter less clearly so.)
OTOH, with this change, it makes the position of the (largely mythical) certain-to-win party (plaintiff or defendant) somewhat better, while making a significantly less wealthy party worse off in pretty much every other case.
The outline of the current system, where awards of costs have a higher standard than just "whoever wins also gets costs". That's not to say that there aren't tweaks to the details of when costs and/or additional sanctions for abuses are awarded that would make the current system better, but switching to loser pays as a rule isn't one of them.
Even if this claim is not found to be technically frivolous (a legal term that carries a standard), the current system offers little or no penalty to those who use the courts as a bullying tactic.
If you say or do something that someone doesn't like, then they just sue you and force you to spend exorbitant amounts of money and time to defend yourself, or otherwise just capitulate to their demands. Even the effort required to show that something is frivolous can be expensive, as the standard is high.
The current design absolutely favors those with money. The defendant can win handily but stand very little chance of even recovering their attorney's fees.
"This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it ..."
So without the background, yes the numbers can seem very low. But with the background, you may find all of the research that went into the home they have (paid for), the retirement accounts they comfortably live on while they continue to grow, and the side jobs he takes for fun (and profit), like buying and rehabbing rental properties alone and with others. Not to mention the healthy lifestyles (why drive when you can bike? Even in Colorado winters?).
Similar to any perceived extreme point of view/lifestyle, it has its fans and detractors. There are many who are very thankful for the guidance...
But I think it comes down to some basics that the American media (if not others) do not seem to promote very often: Earn well, save a large percentage, keep expenses low, invest well, continue to learn. Question perceived "necessities."
I am honestly wondering what they do when people they know are doing something that costs money. Do they just skip it? Birthday dinner @ a restaurant - skip it. Going to a sporting event - skip it. Kid is getting made fun of at school for wearing dollar store shoes - skip it. Kid wants to play school sports but costs $300/sport - skip it. Kid wants to go to dinner/movies with classmates - skip it. Holidays roll around, time to exchange gifts - skip it.
I guess what I am trying to say is that while extreme saving is a laudable goal, I highly doubt that their family budget is so neat and tidy. Exceptions come up all the time and you would have to put forth heroic efforts to say 'no' to most or all of them. You would also be making huge sacrifices and asking your SO and children to do the same.
Just the first few, it goes on.
To specifically answer your questions, you will find the answers in various posts on that site, but you will have to put in the time to read them.
And I agree with the sentiment expressed in one of these above links that the boilerplate of the advice will be found in many personal finance/retire early books. To me, this is a confirmation of what I would consider basic elements or basic truths. And much of it can be common sense, like paying off a high interest rate loan before lower interest rate loans. Or making due with the car/house I currently have, rather than saddling myself with a newer/bigger car/house. I have heard someone refer to this as the process of "striving," rather than the process of "arriving:" It can seem like we never have enough.
I am very fortunate to be male and in the United States, as I have read repeatedly that the world is not fair and I have it far better than many other humans. For this, I am thankful. But I also put in the work.
My wife and I are using the methods we learned from Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad/Poor Dad series (which also has it's fans and detractors) and doing quite well. A four-plex we bought two years ago allowed us to pocket US$8000.00 last year, and yet legally claim a loss of $800 due to IRS rules for deferred taxes.
But the same core lessons can be found (for free) at http://www.financialintegrity.org. And as I said, when I see the same basic guidelines being repeated by so many different people, I conclude that there is likely to be some basic truths buried therein.
Good reading to you!
People like this should be treated the way they act. Like children.
these posts infringe on our trademarks and copyrights in violation of the DCMA
* Maybe this was just an incompetent attorney, but regardless, taking legal action against a website for a comment posted really demonstrates that the company isn't capable of using its good reputation to handle the situation, and therefore lacks said reputation. Can't compete on the merits - GTFO. /rant
It has come to our attention that the commenter "viggity" on your "Hacker News" internet discussion forum has suggested that the practising partners at the Law Office of Mark B Williams, PLC are, and I quote, "a bunch of douchebags".
My clients at the Intimate Hygiene Manufacturers Association maintain that this is an unfounded slur on their products, and insist that the forum posting and any derived or related content be removed forthwith.
> This will serve as formal notice to preserve all ISP [sic] addresses...
To paraphrase Churchill: "I may be drunk, but in the morning I will be sober, whereas you will still be an idiot."
The first part of this post is correct. Except that after receiving the legal threat, the blog owner DID remove the offending forum thread.
But then the blog owner created a new thread describing the legal threat (can't be libelous to describe a business tactic they've actually employed, can it?), which has led to much additional discussion and bad press.
Oh, and there's apparently also a wikipedia editing war going on between the internet and the company PR person. Any guesses on how that one will end?
-new user, followed link from MMM blog to get here.
Also, the actual quote was "This scam product has been discussed here before. Stay away. It's a marketing ploy." Which I guess may be legally actionable, but given their behavior seems like it's quite likely true.
If MMM gets a lawyer he's going to end up defending the content of the post, not his right to operate his site independently.
Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. In US and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability, or safe harbour, provisions for online hosts (see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000). As a condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality.