[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .. |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:10:56 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) |
In gnu.misc.discuss Andrew Halliwell <spike1@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
> Rahul Dhesi <c.c.eiftj@xrexxtomxt.usenet.us.com> wrote:
>> Rjack <user@example.net> writes:
>>>GNU fans never lose, they just mooooooooooooooooooove the goalposts.
>> I feel your pain. Asking for the maximum possible, and then settling for
>> a lot less, is a common strategy that is, unfortunately, embedded into
>> the adversary system of justice.
>> Rjack, if it were up to you, how would you improve the system? Would you
>> propose a rule that once a party asks for a certain amount, it is not
>> permitted to take any less? How would you enforce this?
> The one thing that needs to be done to the system is Loser pays ALL bills,
> both the plaintiff's and the accused's.
I disagree. What needs doing is a thorough reform of legal systems
throughout the world to improve their efficiency. Can anybody explain to
me why a typical simple court case in the developed world takes 18 months
to resolve and costs the loser one, or even several years' earnings?
Realistically, I can't see why, say, a complaint against a neighbour
whose plumbing is leaking couldn't be resolved within four weeks of the
summons being served at a cost to the loser of at most a few hundred
pounds/euros/dollars.
Something a little (but not much) more complicated, SCO vs. IBM/Novell/..
shouldn't take more than 6 months at a total cost of at most a few ten
thousands of dollars.
Western legal systems make government IT projects look like the epitome
of efficiency and good management.
> It's already like that over here in the UK for most types of cases.
> It'd stop a lot of fishing for out of court settlements if the accused was
> no longer terrified of being bankrupted for being found not guilty. Where's
> the justice in that? The innocent should face absolutely no consequences for
> being willing to defend themselves and winning.
And, let's be honest, the losing party shouldn't have to face bankruptcy
either.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., (continued)
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Rjack, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., RonB, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., David Kastrup, 2009/03/18
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/18
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Rahul Dhesi, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Andrew Halliwell, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Rjack, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down ..,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Snit, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., David Kastrup, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Alan Mackenzie, 2009/03/17
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., David Kastrup, 2009/03/18
- Re: Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux patent lock-down .., Rjack, 2009/03/18