Hacker News Reader

Comment by pgo | Hacker News Reader

How, why doesn't a judge throw out apple's case in the first hearing itself. What legal blackmagic can make such a one sided case drag out

View on HN

It depends whether or not they are sued in a state where SLAPP suits are legal. If Apple isn't forced to provide compelling evidence that they have an actual case up front, they can tie up their opposition in expensive legal battles long enough that it won't matter whether or not they win the case. Their opposition may be victorious legally, but made bankrupt in the process.

Of all the things the U.S. legal system got wrong, I think not following the English rule of attorneys' fees was one of the biggest mistakes. If plaintiffs had to pay for the defendant's legal fees, and vice versa, should the opposing party win their case, large corporations might think twice about making spurious legal claims.

I don’t know how it works in the UK but there must be some kind of caveat there right? Otherwise it would seem to me that large corporations would pay for expensive lawyers, forcing small people to settle lest they risk having to pay a hefty legal bill.

Yes, correct.

I like the English rules, but how does it work in practice? How do things like in house lawyers work? If I sue a big corp and lose, how do I pay for all their in house lawyers and experts? How do they keep me from backing out simply through the threat of running up the tab with a ton of experts and such?

How much of a chilling effect is there on people suing big corps? Is that less necessary because of better consumer protection?

There is reasonable limits on how much in fees can be recouped.

Great question. A competent judge would jettison this with summary judgement on day one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com