Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 317

Therefore, it will be harder for the little guy to get representation in court.

Yes, but this is certainly no worse off than if he had gotten a lawyer and still lost the case anyways. Presumably a lawyer will be able to predict if you had a good chance of winning or not, and if he won't represent you if he doesn't think you can win, then at least you're not out the money that you would have spent on the lawyer in the first place where you'd only ending up probably losing the case. Remember, the point of loser-pays is to discourage frivolous lawsuits, and if you don't objectively have a good chance of winning based solely on the merits of your position, then by very defnition, that is a frivolous case.

Now if you had, say, an 80% chance of winning, as you say, then the loan that your lawyer takes out on his own insurance is a risk, but it's only a 20% risk, so he factors that into whether he wants to take the case in the first place. If the lawyer loses despite believing he would win, his insurance rates go up... so he's got incentive to not take cases that he doesn't think he can win, but he doesn't get paid dick all if he decides he's going to refuse absolutely any case that's not a slam dunk just because he's risk averse.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 317

In a universal loser-pays situation, a lawyer will simply not take a case unless they are pretty darn confident they can win it. If the lawyer *is* confident that he can win, then he takes out a loan against his insurance, and pays the victor's legal fees himself if he should lose. The loser is out nothing more than the fees he might have otherwise owed his own lawyer.

Even at its worst, it is no worse for the little guy than where he might try and sue and lose anyways. The only bad part is that he may not find anyone willing to represent him in court, but even that definitely leaves him no worse off than if he had paid his own way and lost.

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 1) 86

It's not so much that there is anything "special" about it, as much as there is that there are things about it that only the manufacturer will know, because a product manufacturer doesn't necessarily disclose enough information about their product for independent parties to be able to repair or even diagnose issue that might arise with the device. Product manufactures do this a lot, often to discourage people from using independent repair services if something goes wrong, and I'd be honestly surprised if the Note was not similarly incomprehensible to third parties that might try to analyze it

Comment Re:Why Mars? (Score 1) 471

Not all of it... The moon's composition is actually nearly 60% oxygen, and it entirely possible to extract on location once you have the appropriate mining facilities available. The two vital needs. air and water, are available on the moon too, if one is willing to do work to get at them. Weighing this difficulty in comparison to the sheer magnitude of pursuing colonization over a hundred times further away on a world that is perhaps at best only marginally more hospitable, the moon makes far more sense... at least as a stepping stone on the way to more distant worlds, than bypassing it for headline-grabbing ideal of going to Mars instead. The *only* thing keeping us from being able to go the moon right now is ultimately the lack of significant incentive to do so. There are much more substantial barriers, both economical and technological, that are keeping us from going to Mars right now.

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 1) 86

Just because the fire started at the battery does not mean that the person did not do something that caused it to happen. An independent party may be able to determine this, but they also may not. More importantly, even knowing that it started at the battery would not generally be helpful to other parties in determining if the underlying cause was a one-off occurrence on the so-called "safe" note 7's, or is symptomatic of a deeper issue that Samsung was not yet aware of. Samsung is the only company that can make this determination, and in the interests of the safety of all owners, it is imperative that they analyze the phone.

Comment Re:Refused to hand over "evidence" (Score 1) 86

What, I may ask, could you expect an independent party to do? with it? Only Samsung is truly qualified to determine if the fault was in the design of their entire product line as it was with the vulnerable Note 7's, or if this was a one-off occurrence... or if the person sabotaged his own device and was simply claiming it had exploded.

I'm not saying third parties shouldn't be involved here... someone needs to keep Samsung honest in all of this. Ultimately, however, it is Samsung that is going to have to examine the phone because anything that anyone else does will not be founded on the necessary expert knowledge that only Samsung will have about their product to make a deterministic evaluation.

Comment Why Mars? (Score 1) 471

Why not the moon?

Oh sure, we've been there before... but seriously, if the goal is to build a self-sustaining permanent habitat as soon as possible, then why not build one on the moon first?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't go to Mars eventually, but I think talking about it before we've even started to seriously talk about colonizing the lunar surface, let alone doing it, is really putting the cart before the horse.

At the very least, the moon is less than a hundredth as far. Why do the people who propose this always refuse to even try to walk before they want to run?

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 317

If you don't have confidence that the court will deliver a fair verdict (and I'm not saying that many don't), then you have correspondingly less incentive to want to use the court system to resolve a dispute in the first place, unless you are hoping you can manipulate the court into delivering an unfair one or are otherwise using the court system as a casino for justice... both of which are exactly the kind of frivolous lawsuit that loser-pays is supposed to prevent.

Comment Re: Yup - ask any lawyer what it's like to go to c (Score 1) 317

That's an entirely fine position to take, but people who believe that the court system isn't fair aren't likely to want to use it in the first place to obtain what they genuinely believe is a fair verdict. They would be literally gambling that the court *might* side with them based only on their feelings about the matter, rather than what is objectively lawful, and such an approach, even if their claim otherwise may have had merit, is just another example of a frivolous lawsuit that loser pays is supposed to prevent.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 317

If one were to believe that their peers can be so swayed then they have no confidence in the court to deliver a just verdict in the first place. After that, there is no rational basis remaining for them to even *want* to use the court system to resolve a dispute unless that person were actually wanting to manipulate the court into delivering an unjust verdict, or unless one figured that the court system was intended to be used as some sort of casino for justice.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 317

The system that exists will inevitably cause some dodgy claims to be put forward.

It's not that it *causes* them to be put forward, its that it permits them... without regard for anything that one might expect or hope for with regards to a fair verdict.

Loser pays only allows for the possibility for legitimate claims to be dropped when one has very little confidence in the court system to deliver a fair verdict, and in such circumstances one ought to have equally little incentive to be using the court system in the first place to resolve a dispute. I'm not saying that people can't be unconfident in the court system to be fair... only that such people are only at best using the court system like a casino, and gambling on justice. That's not what the court system is for, and such usage *should* be discouraged, because such usage is, itself, a kind of frivolous lawsuit based on personal beliefs of what is right, rather that on what is objectively lawful.

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 317

Exactly. Loser pays all system basically means you DO NOT sue a big company regardless of how solid you think your claim is.

Assuming that they believe that the intrinsic merits of their own case are stronger than those of their opponent... the only reason that would be true is if one did not believe that the court system was capable of seeing this fact simply because of the amount of money that their opponent might be spend on lawyers. This can happen, of course, but if one does not have any confidence in the court to render a fair and just verdict, then why would one try and use the court system at all unless they were actually hoping to use the court system to render what they believe may be an unjust one?

Comment Re:Yup (Score 1) 317

People that believe they have a legitimate claim, but do not believe that the court system is capable of rendering a just verdict in their favour simply because they don't have as much money as their opponent might have to spend on lawyers don't use the court system to resolve their disputes in the first place. I'm not saying that believing your opponent has more money than you won't stop some entirely legitimate claims, but that happens already if everyone pays their own costs anyways, and I cannot say for sure, but this demographic may not even be significantly impacted by implementing a loser-pays policy. However, the notion that a loser-pays policy would stop many more non-frivolous lawsuits that would otherwise happen simply because of how much money their opponent is likely to spend on lawyers than frivolous lawsuits is almost certainly a specious one.

Slashdot Top Deals

ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.

Working...