Hacker News Reader

Comment by plasma | Hacker News Reader

Hey Doug,

All in did cloudflare have to spend a modest amount of its money to retaliate in this way?

I think public shaming of the layers involved by name would also be appropriate - bullies often don’t like being called out.

Would be keen to hear whether the ethics inquiry had any effect.

View on HN

As we described a bit in a previous post at the end of the litigation -- https://blog.cloudflare.com/winning-the-blackbird-battle/ -- in addition to the money we paid for the crowdsourced bounty, we also had to pay considerably to litigate the case. Even though we won the underlying litigation as quickly and convincingly as possible, we still spent more in legal fees than Blackbird might have been able to recover in damages after trial. That's why settling / licensing will always make more short-term economic sense, and keep trolls alive.

Shouldn't blackbird have to cover your legal fees if they lose?

Not in the USA, in general. That’s the core issue - it’s asymmetric warfare.

Huh. I wonder if this is a significant factor in the US being so litigious in general.

Unfortunately that kind of punitive punishment will deter genuine cases from be being filed for fear of penalties .

Also it is hard to measure the actual minimum cost required. Cloudflare might have retained a top class firm to fight this, perhaps they could have been represented by a very affordable one person shop as well. What cost should the court award ? Former means cases against people and companies with resources will be very difficult for fear of losing, later does not solve the problem of economic incentives

> Unfortunately that kind of punitive punishment will deter genuine cases from be being filed for fear of penalties .

Legal insurance ("Rechtsschutzversicherung" in German) helps here.

> What cost should the court award ?

In Germany courts can order that one party has to cover all associated costs or that the cost be split / limited to "reasonable" amounts - this ensures that everyone has viable access to legal defense.

If it stops people suing people for having a loose paving slab on their garden path, then it's probably a good tradeoff? (albeit not one without downsides).

Any reason why is that? It doesn't make sense that you have to pay for defending yourself after the judge said you were innocent. You can just sue for nothing whoever you don't like and has less money than you.

This happens all the time in the US. I've personal made life decisions based on the the possibility I was going to piss off the wrong wealthy person who'd sue me without basis just to bankrupt me

Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com