What the parent said. Also, this: http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/category/heifer-international/

Pat's a big geek, and he's an author with a big geeky fan base. So giving to Worldbuilders is a geeky pursuit.

--AC

It's not a change if it is how things already are.

In every jurisdiction within the U.S., a judge can, upon motion, enter summary judgment for one party or the other. Summary judgment can be entered if there is no genuine issue of material fact, and one party is entitled to win as a matter of law. There is no trial.

In many jurisdictions in the U.S., if the judge concludes that the case is frivolous, groundless, or vexatious, the judge may then enter an award of attorney fees for the winning party, even without a trial. However, if there are counterclaims . . . in other words, if the prevailing party is suing the losing party for other matters, then a trial is necessary, because the losing party may still have a valid defense.

Your proposed system is not a change . . . .

--AC

But the trial doesn't continue if the judge tosses the case. It just ends. However, if (big if) the case is frivolous, groundless, or vexatious, then the judge can award attorney fees in many U.S. jurisdictions.

No one continues litigating to rack up attorney fees under the existing system.

--AC

While I generally agree with what you're saying, your post is not entirely accurate.

The truth is that a losing plaintiff often ends up with substantial expenses. While his lawyer may be on a contingency fee, his expert is likely barred from working on contingency. That means the engineer, doctor, economist, or general contractor whose testimony is key to the case is charging the plaintiff hourly for his or her work on the case. Most states prohibit plaintiff's lawyers from absorbing those costs (due to concerns about champerty and maintenance). That means that even though the case may be close, that losing plaintiff may end up on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in costs.

So the little guy can end up bankrupt simply by losing a close case.

--AC

Actually, in the United States, barring a contract or statute to the contrary, the rule is that each party pays its own attorney fees.

In many jurisdictions, there are statutes that permit the judge to award fees if the case is groundless, frivolous, or vexatious. A few states have statutes that permit an award of fees if the defense is groundless, frivolous, or vexatious (but nobody ever thinks about that side of the equation).

If the original case is "tossed," then judgment enters for the defendant, and the case is over (unless there are counterclaims, or only some of the plaintiff's claims were tossed). A court cannot continue to hear a case that has been fully resolved (where there are no remaining claims between the parties), because there is no longer a case or controversy before it. I am not aware of any system in which the defendant must continue incurring fees in the hopes of making a losing plaintiff pay them. That's a catastrophically stupid way to run a legal system.

--AC

Obviously written by someone who has no experience with the legal system.

Look, the fact of the matter is that litigation necessarily involves disputed facts. I say you violated your non-compete, you say you didn't. You say I appropriated your trade secrets, I say I discovered them independently. That's why we have juries, to help establish an "official" set of facts.

The reality is that the best cases settle out of court before trial. Hell, in the U.S. over 97% of cases resolve prior to trial. That's because if it's a slam dunk case on liability and damages, the defendant (or his insurer) will pay to end the lawsuit. On the other hand, if the case is obviously frivolous, the plaintiff or his lawyer will dismiss the case as that becomes clear. Plaintiff's lawyers don't generally enjoy spending hours and hours of time that could be put to productive uses working on B.S. cases. We'd really prefer to take cases that have a chance of turning into revenue.

This means that the cases that are most likely going to go to trial are the rare close ones. These are generally cases where there is evidence on both sides, and no clear, slam dunk winner. In other words, these are the cases that most need a jury's input so that the parties can at least resolve their disputes and move forward.

A loser pays system does nothing to eliminate frivolous claims or defenses. It just further punishes a person who had an intractable dispute and was wrong about who the facts favor.

--AC

Not really. At $150,000 for willful infringement, and 330,000 copies, he's looking at $49,500,000,000, in damages. (SRC: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2)).*

That's about 1/3 of Hollywood's combined gross for every movie released 1996 and 2012 (as of last weekend). (SRC: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/)

No due process problem with that.

--AC

*Actually, the statutory damages are per work, not per infringing act, so the real number would be reduced to reflect the number of titles he copied, not the number of copies he made).

I know there's something in there about regulating something between the States.

What could it be?

Oh yeah, the Commerce Clause. Article I, Section 8.

And do you really want your medical devices and/or pharmaceuticals to be manufactured in the state with the lowest level of safety regulation?

--AC

Generally speaking, because the drafters did not explain what they meant by the term "commerce" when they drafted the Constitution, and the Court has interpreted Congressional power to regulate commerce between the States as encompassing the channels, instrumentalities, and activities of interstate commerce.

--AC

Please, please, please. Learn your history.

FDR did not pack the court with statists. In fact, the proposal he had advanced (of adding more justices to the supreme court), never went through. Instead, one justice on the court changed his mind about how to approach these matters and turned what had once been a 4-5 court into a 5-4 court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

But go ahead and blame FDR, that's easier than learning about history.

--AC

There is a great brief filed by a Colorado Public Defender addressing this issue (specifically the word Fuck and its history and uses).

The brief can be found at: http://scofacts.org/The-F-Motion.html

--AC

The reason it takes so long to check the list is that the airlines are not giving the manifest data back to the TSA. The TSA updates the lists, but it doesn't have access to the manifests, so it cannot check. Instead, the airlines check the lists whenever they chose, but no less than every two (previously eight) hours.

The big government solution would be to compel the airlines to provide the data to the TSA, which can then check the manifests against the lists as the data comes in. But privacy advocates and European governments are opposed to giving the "big government" real time access to people's travel plans. The government has been willing to accept the current system as a compromise.

Ultimately, the question is whether you want to allow the private sector to actually perform the no fly list reconciliation and keep your data relatively secret, or whether you want the government to be able to instantly identify people on the no fly list, but have access to your movements via air travel.

The choices are not great, and I won't express my preferences.

--AC

Except that, in a lawsuit, you can only recover for the damages you suffer. As one of those personal injury lawyers people are always talking about, a case with a slightly cut hand is not worth the time and money involved. A case with an amputated hand is going to have substantial medical bills and other economic losses, which would justify the time and expense involved in prosecuting the case.

What you're talking about is the difference between a ~$1 case, and (potentially) a $2,000,000.00 case. As a matter of professional ethics, I'm not going to spend $150,000 hiring expert witnesses to recover $1.

--AC

Great. How do we get the data for those long-term studies?

Do we do the experiment and then check the patients for an extended period of time? But before we can get there, we have to do the experiment.

Also, how do you know what Dr. Centeno tells his patients in the process of obtaining informed consent. I know the man professionally, and have found him to have the highest ethical standards. I don't know the precise information he provides when he obtains informed consent, but neither do you.

--AC