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

[Matthew Carpenter]

Chong Yu Meng wrote:

> 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.

There is quite a difference between lawsuits and jail-time.... :)