Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

We're talking about a system where fighting a suit has a certain fixed cost, along with an added element of risk. (Risk because the system is broken enough now that the outcomes are often near random).

The "best" thing to do is settle for less than the fixed cost + your willingness to gamble. This creates a system of minor extortionists knowing that by simply filing suits and collecting settlements they can sap wealth from businesses that create it almost without effort.

Whats best for the one business (to settle) is not best for all businesses because it perpetuates the broken status quo.

What it takes to stop this cycle is for individuals to stand up and say "No. That's a step to far", even if it means loosing more than taking the "rational" option of settling.

To put it slightly more succinctly, to say as nations do "We will not negotiate with terrorists". There's a reason we take such a hard stance on that. Once you give in once, you'll be giving in forever. It takes courage. Even for a former lawyer.




Wow, that's a lot of koolaid slinging.

People fight lawsuits all the time. People fight frivolous lawsuits most of all. The article makes it appear that the connection between Mike Arrington and the company is extremely tenuous. Great. Fighting that doesn't take courage, just business sense. There are far better profiles in courage, especially against better caliber patent trolls and slimy ambulance chasers.

Have you contributed to ACLU yet?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: