Warp wrote:
>   In a way it's slightly better here. If you lose you usually pay a
> rational amount of money in the form of fines or punitive damages.

The same is true here. Punitive damages are usually 3x the normal 
damages. Sometimes it can go higher if 3x the normal damages aren't 
punitive enough. For example, if McDonalds Corp has to pay $10K in 
medical bills, they're really not going to be particularly punished by 
having to pay $40K instead of $10K.

> You'll never see a multi-million lawsuit here (unless the damages
> were indeed worth multiple millions).

Usually what happens here is people say "$10K in medical bills, but my 
emotional distress is worth $60 Million!"  Then the jury gets swayed by 
the lawyer, and you hear a $60M result. Then six months later the 
defendant has appealed, pointed out that the law provides for only 3x 
punitive damages, and they wind up paying $40K or whatever, but that 
doesn't make the news.  The judge doesn't get to tell the jury how much 
to award, so it's up to the process of appeal to get the law properly 
enforced.

The thing I think is the problem I was speaking of is where the RIAA 
comes along (as an example) and says "Pay us $1000, or we'll cost you 
$100K in lawyer fees."  Even if you win and the RIAA pays the lawyers, 
you still have to cough up $100K in advance.  You have to have a pretty 
airtight case for a lawyer here to work on the basis he's going to not 
get paid if he doesn't win.

Maybe lawyers are cheaper in other countries? Less baroque laws?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message