|
|
|
|
|
|
by CrazyCatDog
3740 days ago
|
|
|
It's not that obvious. Paul Klemperer (auction theorist) covers a similar question: what happens if the losing party has to pay the prevailing party's legal fees? Answer: the same amount will be spent on legal fees and the same cases will be brought forward. (1) See middle of page 5 here: http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/klemperer/WhyEveryEconomist.p...
Where he debunks Dan Quayle's court reform ideas |
|
|
That's not at all a similar question. We're talking about staking the following strategy through the heart:
* Some part of USGov makes an overreaching legal demand using a really shaky (perhaps unsupportable) legal argument.
* They get a magistrate to issue an order in an "emergency" ex parte hearing
Now either:
* USGov presents that court order to a small and/or legally clueless business who says: "This is a court order! I have to comply with it, else I get in trouble!". USGov gets what they wanted and gets to bully another unwary victim with the same bullshit tactic
or
* USGov presents that court order to a larger and/or legally savvy business who examines it and says: "No. This is bullshit."
* That company goes to the court and tells the court why the order is bullshit
* The court quietly mumbles: "USGov... they're right, looks like it's bullshit."
* USGov goes: "Oops! We really didn't need that anyway!", withdraws the request, and retries it at a later day with a less savvy victim
So, completely different situations.
If USGov had to keep pushing such cases through if the defendant demanded that they be pushed through, what you'd get is what we get when Newegg fights patent trolls: evisceration of bullies, thugs, and the chicanery that permits them to operate.