I have mentioned this more than a few times...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Feb 26, 2008 8:10 AM EDT |
Federal law provides for stiff sanctions against those who inflict frivolous lawsuits on the court, and federal judges are increasingly willing to use them. Patent law, in particular, has some strong loser pays provisions when the merit of the suit is not justifiable. |
| tuxchick Feb 26, 2008 8:56 AM EDT |
How often are sanctions actually applied? One thing I've learned from Groklaw is the US courts and law aren't even on the same planet as real people. But it still seems a ridiculous waste and abuse that the various SCO lawsuits are still alive. There are no assets to recover in any case. It all seems like a big horrible joke. |
| dinotrac Feb 26, 2008 9:27 AM EDT |
TC -- Funny you should mention SCO -- not a patent suit, btw. If you'll recall, the judge in that case threw out the majority of SCO's claims for failure to comply with her orders to produce a list of violations. Sanctions are not that uncommon in patent cases because the victor in a patent suit is highly motivated -- getting one's legal fees paid is a big deal. No judge is in a hurry to order sanctions, and for good reason. There is a constant tension between protecting the court's time (which translates into availability) and protecting the plaintiff's right to sue. We want to dissuade truly frivolous suits -- those filed to bully or to stretch out time, or what have you. We don't want to discourage sincere suits that, in the end, fail on the merits. That becomes critical in civil suits, because, often, the plaintiff does not have access to the evidence needed to establish a solid foundation for the suit until discovery is complete. |
| tuxchick Feb 26, 2008 10:02 AM EDT |
Heh, true, it's not a patent case, sorry. It just seems like the whole process is mind-bogglingly inefficient, gives too much power to plaintiffs with zero basis for a case, and it punishes the wrong people. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 26, 2008 10:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:Funny you should mention SCO -- not a patent suit, btw. True. But you can't tell me that Boies Schiller & Flexner don't know how meritless the SCO case has become. Some of the things they filed on behalf of SCO they should have refused to file. |
| dinotrac Feb 26, 2008 11:02 AM EDT |
UMMM PEOPLE --- Have you missed the salient point? The judge threw out 2/3 of SCO's complaint as a sanction for their lack of cooperation. Yes, sanctions DO get applied. No, they don't get applied quickly. An efficient court system that quashes your right to seek redress is not an improvement on the current mess. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 26, 2008 11:12 AM EDT |
Quoting:Have you missed the salient point? The judge threw out 2/3 of SCO's complaint as a sanction for their lack of cooperation. I know. That's SCO's punishment. Now I'm waiting for the case to finish and SCO to get burried so we can see Boies Schiller & Flexner's punishment. After all, this news story is about the attorneys getting punished, not the client. |
| azerthoth Feb 26, 2008 11:14 AM EDT |
There is also the possibility that additional sanctions could be imposed on Boies Schiller & Flexner at the end of or after the conclusion of the case. While I am not certain, aren't sanctions against the lawyers done usually after all other matters pertaining to the case have been laid to rest? SCO has already had sanctions levied against them, that does not preclude them from receiving further sanctions in the closing either. I may be wrong since IANAL, but from light reading of other cases unrelated it seems plausible. Dino? *edit* Darn you Sander, you posted while I was typing. Glad I'm not the only one who caught that point. */edit* |
| dinotrac Feb 26, 2008 11:48 AM EDT |
azerthoth - Haven't continued to follow the case as I believe it to have no significance. It certainly is possible, but plausible? That would depend on continued stupidity by the lawyers and lawyers really aren't that dumb. They probably pushed the judge as far as they could because their case was falling apart anyway and their best hope was that the judge would not impose sanctions. Now they know she's willing... |
| hkwint Feb 26, 2008 3:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:Judge makes lawyers pay for frivolity OK, how about this: Software companies pay more money due to patent litigation than they earn from their software patents (source: Pieter Hintjes at FOSDEM 2008). So those lawyers can miss that tiny amount of money I suggest; after filling their pockets with more money that software companies earn from patents. They're laughing at the software companies being stupid enough to generously fill their pockets, but not laughing right in the face of those software companies of course. |
| dinotrac Feb 26, 2008 7:25 PM EDT |
Hans -- Among the required courses in law school is "laughing all the way to the bank". |
| GDStewart Feb 26, 2008 7:35 PM EDT |
Dino, The judge your talking about is the magistrate judge, not the trial judge. I don't think she can do much more than deny complaints and even that they can be appealed to the trial judge. It's clear that you haven't been keeping up because the SCO lawyers continue to do dumb things. If they have a brlliiant plan, they'd better start using it soon. Apparently, sometimes (not nearly often enough in the case of frivolous lawsuits) the judge has the last laugh. |
| dinotrac Feb 27, 2008 9:06 AM EDT |
GD - Don't disrespect the magistrate. The trial judge certainly won't. Federal judges carry quite a load, and the work is split up for a reason. Those claims were dropped for a very good reason and I expect that the trial judge will be in no hurry to encourage such massive disrespect of the courts. As to lawyers continuing to do dumb things, please understand that, for a lawyer, dumb has a different meaning. So long as a client pays, lawyers are more than willing to do run-of-the-mill dumb things, especially as they often aren't so dumb if you actually understand the client's priorities. However, some things subject the lawyers themselves to liability, and good lawyers like to avoid that. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 27, 2008 10:27 AM EDT |
Frivolous old m$ gets bit again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7266629.stm |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!