 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:05:17 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
wrote:
>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.
Do you not have "No win, no fee" lawers in the States?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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?
As I mentioned, here the loser pays the winner's lawyer fees. Thus the
winner doesn't have to pay a dime.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47f1a81c$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > which suggest they are also rethinking, or at least discussing if they
> > screwed up, and how badly, with their higher ups, if donations really
> > "are" some sort of violation or not.
>
> Technically, in the US, it doesn't matter what you gain from violating
> copyright. Giving it away free is just as stoppable as giving it away
> for money.
>
Yeah. But, then why not produce a cease and desist when they *start*,
not years later, when they offer people to donate some money to them for
their troubles? As far as I am concerned, you lose any leg you had to
stand on if you opt to "not" act on the blindingly obvious fact that
someone is breaking your supposed copyright, and doing it right under
your own nose, on your own forums, and letting it happen, right up until
some manager goes, "Oh, well... Now that is too far, nail him!", and
then probably not for a reason they can legitimately argue was actually
worse than what they already ignored.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <47f1e59c$1@news.povray.org>, sco### [at] laptopcom says...
> > Its real questionable whether intentionally breaking your
> > own technology is strictly ethical or legal, when the only reason to do
> > so is to force someone to buy a new one. Try that with anything like a
> > car.
>
> Exactly that thing is already done in cars. The BMW 118d, 120d and 123d
are
> all exactly the same car - you get exactly the same lump of metal and
> plastic. There is a huge difference in price though. Why? Because ther
e
> is some line of code in the software that tells the engine how much torqu
e
> to produce, which is different for each model. If you just bought a 118d
,
> you can't go around complaining that it's not fair how your car is
> artificially crippled blah blah blah. If the car manufacture did not act
> like this you wouldn't have been able to afford the 118d in the first pla
ce!
>
Strictly speaking, true. But it doesn't take much when pulling that, in
*some* industries, to get your company in serious damn trouble with its
customers, when you lied to them about what that "code" was really
doing.
> > Oh, sorry, but the 2007x isn't intended to drive on Main st., now
> > that they upgraded the streets with a new type of painted line, I am
> > afraid it won't go faster than 3 MPH or let you listen to the radio
> > while on that street. However, for an additional $20,000 you can buy th
e
> > 2008q, which is 100% compatible... Yeah, right. That would go over good
> > in court.
>
> What law exactly would it be breaking? SO long as they make it clear whe
n
> you buy the car what its limitations are I don't see the problem. Of cou
rse
> nobody would accept this sort of deal which is why they don't offer it.
>
> In fact when I hire a car here in this city I can choose a cheaper option
to
> only drive it within this area, or the more expensive option to be allowe
d
> to drive over the whole country, or the top price to be allowed to take i
t
> abroad. It's my choice, and it gives me a cheaper option if I want to ta
ke
> it.
>
In this case, the very clear fact that the specification sheat on the
2007x version **claimed** compatibility with the same road, when it
didn't actually have it, and they only bothered to say *after the fact*
that they intentionally disabled it.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Do you not have "No win, no fee" lawers in the States?
Yes, but they won't take cases they're not guaranteed to win easily. :-)
Most times, you pay the lawyer up front, and then you get reimbursed by
the loser.
Not that I have a whole lot of experience with court cases, mind.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> As I mentioned, here the loser pays the winner's lawyer fees. Thus the
> winner doesn't have to pay a dime.
Who pays the lawyer *while* they're working? Before the case is
decided? Or do the lawyers all work and only take payment at the end of
the case?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In this case, the very clear fact that the specification sheat on the
> 2007x version **claimed** compatibility with the same road, when it
> didn't actually have it,
In that case you can easily take it back for a refund, for not performing as
advertised.
And then there's probably some official organisation in your country that
looks into these claims of false advertising and deals with them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:28:24 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Do you not have "No win, no fee" lawers in the States?
>
>Yes, but they won't take cases they're not guaranteed to win easily. :-)
>
That is good because I thought that I was falsely blaming America for
starting the practice. :)
>Most times, you pay the lawyer up front, and then you get reimbursed by
>the loser.
>
>Not that I have a whole lot of experience with court cases, mind.
Nor I and I hope that I never do. I find this blame culture we in the
UK are developing most distasteful.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Who pays the lawyer *while* they're working?
Your insurance company?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
