> Scrabulous had run out of money ...buried their competitor with legal fees.
that's pretty fucked. I wonder if there's any lending mechanism which would front the legal fees, and then recoupe it back from the judgement (if won).
It seems that the method of burying a competitor with a suite that lacks real merit would only work if the fees become unpayable. So closing this loophole would fix the problem!
Could be interesting to see a service or company who's sole purpose is to fight lawsuits aimed at its members. Or in other words, lawsuit insurance for the common person/small business.
Maybe then this sort of behaviour would stop, as large companies would realise any attempt at legal action on spurious/questionable grounds would result in a battle with billion dollar opposition, and their intended target not paying them a penny regardless.
> that's pretty fucked. I wonder if there's any lending mechanism which would front the legal fees, and then recoupe it back from the judgement (if won).
If your lawyer thinks you have a strong case, they will work for you for free, in exchange for a share of the bounty.
Unfortunately, you can't always tell if you have a strong case.
> If your lawyer thinks you have a strong case, they will work for you for free, in exchange for a share of the bounty.
Unfortunately if you are being sued winning just means you don't own anyone money. It is a separate thing to collect lawyers fees from the other party.
I truly wish there was some sort of legal money parity rule, so the burden of paying for the case in terms of lawyers and court costs was shared by both sides in proportion to their available assets.
that's pretty fucked. I wonder if there's any lending mechanism which would front the legal fees, and then recoupe it back from the judgement (if won).
It seems that the method of burying a competitor with a suite that lacks real merit would only work if the fees become unpayable. So closing this loophole would fix the problem!