Loser pays is not a solution

Posted Apr 23, 2004 6:33 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524)
In reply to: Loser pays is not a solution by sphealey
Parent article: BayStar: SCO needs new management (ZDNet)

Countries with loser pays typically have checks and balances in place to prevent a rich company from crushing a resource-strapped individual.

For example, if I get sued by Microsoft here in Norway, In the lowest court I'd have to put up for my own costs (but I'd get that money back from Microsoft if they loose), but this lowest instance is quick and cheap. Typical costs is one standard court-fee. (around $100 currently)

If I win, and Microsoft accepts this and pay, the case is over. If I loose, and don't appeal, the case is also over.

In the typical "we'll crush him with our money" scenario though, what happens is that I win, but the opponent appeals, hoping that I won't have the resources to follow trough all the way. This, however, doesn't work, because in this case the state would put up for my costs to have the case carried trough. (they'll get this money back once the case is ultimately won)

I suspect that even without this system, in a looser-pay scenario, it'd be profitable for private ventures to finance appeals. It'd be a bussiness opportunity to finance (and lead) cases on behalf of resource-strapped individuals/small bussinesses who won in the first instance, but had their case appealed by the opponent.

Theories are one thing, practice another. It is a *fact* that there are lots of countries in the world where "loser-pays". It's also a *fact* that these countries do *NOT* typically show more "small guy gets crushed" cases than do the USA. Infact I would argue that the american system tends to ensure that the guy with the most resources win much more often than any other system I know of. Look at what happened to O.J or to Microsoft, and what is going to happen to Jackson.