|
|
|
|
|
|
by noodles_nomore
1104 days ago
|
|
|
The legal system is a game that is played for profit. Being able to sue anyone for anything is advantageous for the big dogs. So it's imperative that as many laws as possible cover as much seemingly innocuous human conduct as possible with the highest stakes possible. Unrestricted expansion of intellectual property, the ability to lay claim to arbitrary regions of the ideosphere, makes perfect sense. |
|
|
Unless they can justify very high damages, they are predisposed to settling out of court. When you hire top lawyers, or have a massive legal department, you're paying a lot of money. Going to court is at best a gamble unless you have an obvious and solid case.
What this means is they use threats of going to court wrapped up in legalese in the hopes of getting their way out of court.
Unfortunately, the degree to which various districts earn reputations around being pro or anti patent means they're also advantaged in "shopping around", so to speak, to get any case they bring moved to a favorable court. This is the biggest thing that they can do that your average "small dogs" have a harder time with.
The worst has changed in the last year:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/patent-plaintiffs-scram...
but it'd be nice to see ways to make it more difficult to game the system by "judge shopping".