Legal aspects [was: anybody else see darl on teevee?]

[Chong Yu Meng]

dep wrote:

>the sco case is a case study in what's wrong with our legal system. it 
>also points to needed remedies: the loser ought to pay both sides' 
>costs 
>
That's the problem I had in mind. Consider this scenario : say, if 
Company A sues Person B for some alleged crime -- if Person B cannot 
afford a lawyer, will he not have to pay damages to Company A, even if 
Company A has not defined what it is that Person B has done wrong ? This 
is no different from a so-called "police state" where the "authorities" 
can throw somebody into jail without producing evidence of the "crime" 
he is supposed to have committed. In Singapore, even the Internal 
Security Department has to produce proof of terrorist/criminal actions 
before they can throw a suspect into jail (this is what the foreign 
press labels as "detention without trial").

Of course, if Person A is as rich as Bill Gates, he can probably fight a 
long drawn legal battle and possibly win, but what would the penalty be 
to Company A ? A mere slap of the wrist ? Can Company A claim: oops! I 
made an error -- you're not guilty of the crime, so I'll just take my 
lawsuit and leave.

If that is the case, what stops corporations in the US from sueing every 
living being on the planet ? You could conceivably setup a company that 
does nothing except conduct lawsuits every day ! For a start, you could 
claim that you hold the patents to the "Hello World" program in C, C#, 
Java, Visual Basic, etc. without producing proof of your patent.

> the judge should be able to hold hearings on whether the 
>allegations were malicious and find probable cause for arrest for 
>criminal fraud those who bring such lawsuits in bad faith 
>

Quite right ! There should be a penalty for such companies.

Regards,
pascal chong