| |||||||||||||
EFF: Open Letter to House Judiciary - Investigate Patent TrollsEFF: Open Letter to House Judiciary - Investigate Patent TrollsPosted Feb 28, 2013 13:27 UTC (Thu) by HenrikH (guest, #31152)In reply to: EFF: Open Letter to House Judiciary - Investigate Patent Trolls by JoeBuck Parent article: EFF: Open Letter to House Judiciary - Investigate Patent Trolls
Is it not customary for the court to require both sides to put a certain amount in escrow before starting the trail on cases where the loosing side will pay all the costs?
(Log in to post comments)
EFF: Open Letter to House Judiciary - Investigate Patent Trolls Posted Feb 28, 2013 19:46 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
it's extremely unusual for the loosing side to pay the costs of the winning side (it usually requires significant misbehavior from the loosing side), so no, it's not usual to require amounts in escrow before a case.
In fact, winning a case is only the beginning of the collection process, if the loosing side doesn't pay up, you may have to go to a significant amount of expense to get your money.
EFF: Open Letter to House Judiciary - Investigate Patent Trolls Posted Mar 2, 2013 1:38 UTC (Sat) by HenrikH (guest, #31152) [Link]
Yes I know that this is unusual in the US (over here all civil trials is looser pays all costs) but if this proposal would be law then it would of course be usual :).
And would it be such a stretch to imagine that in such trails when the defending side argues to the judge that they don't think that the other side would pay due to being a shell company, that the judge would order an escrow?
|
|||||||||||||