Should abuse of certain rights be punished criminally

[Lord MJ]

As Wong said in his communism essay, when you grant people freedom, they will abuse it. Well I say certain abuse can and should be punished criminally, or civilly.


Intellectual Property Law

It's well known how companies, and even individuals abuse thier IP "rights" to extort and harm others. This despicable practice causes innocents billions of dollars possibly.


Bogus patents are granted everyday, and the owners of those patents turn around and use them to extort poor defenseless business owners. Even worse are hidden patents on things that become industry standards, and then the owner turns around and uses those patents to extort the entire nation!

Such behavior should not be tolerated, and criminal sanctions should be imposed to prevent such immoral behavior.


Harrassment Law

This one resonates personally with me because I myself have been a victim of abuse of rights granted by the harrassment laws.

When orginally written, they were meant to protect women (it covers all people, but the laws seemed geared mostly towards women) from unwelcome behavior that is intended to cause a woman discomfort. Sounds nice.

But now it has been bastardized to the point that ANY ACTION that causes a woman discomfort is harrassment, even if its unintentional. This has led to all sorts of abuse, with harrassment complaints being filed over petty matters, personal conflicts turning into legal episodes, selfish people abusing the laws for thier own gain, and all sorts of crap. The worse kind is the cliched story of a woman doing something downright indecent to a man, and then running to the harrassment laws to avoid being confronted about the affair.

Add to that the fact that innocent actions can be wildly misinterpreted or misunderstood. It's quite ridiculous that a man can get into legal trouble just because a woman misunderstands something.

Add to that the fact that most authorities will feel sympathetic to the woman and her "sob story".

A woman once told me that its sad how many men are in jail, because selfish women abuse harrassment law for thier own selfish and childish ends.

To add my personal story, a girl at school who I thought was my friend, didn't like me being shy and quiet around her, she said it made her feel uncomfortable. It got to the point that she got so frustrated with me, that she couldn't handle any kind of interaction with me, and she began to feel "unsafe". So when it came time for us to work on team projects I couldn't organize team meetings because this woman started cussing and screaming when I called her up. When I finally put my foot down and told her that we have to work together, and that I wasn't going to change my behavior just because she didn't like it, she turned around and told our school dean that I was harrassing and stalking her! Saying stuff like, I was phone harrassing her, and that I was using our group for the purposes of stalking her! I got kicked off our team because that mess, and I couldn't confront the woman because she would just turn around and cry harrassment! Fortunately I was able to explain things enough to our dean that I didn't get into serious trouble. But the emotional and academic damage I suffered as a result of that incident wasn't minimal.


There should be SERIOUS penalties for that kind of behavior. Abuse of that extent should NEVER be tolerated, and part of me wants to have harrassment law repealed completely because of mess like this.


Contract Laws.

Just look at M$ EULAS to find out why these laws should be tossed in the crapper. The fact that M$ can restrict consumer rights so greatly with a simple EULA is appalling.


Freedom of Speech.

This time however, I can not, in good consciense advocated any kind of sanctions against those that abuse free speech, because the cure would be worse than the disease. Free speech is a fundamental right of man, and any restrictions on it will do more harm than good.

[Pu-239]

AGREED

[Captain tycho]

This reminds me of a certain lawsuit in my town that ended only a week ago. Here it is:
This woman was sitting at a table in the local cafe when a waiter came up and asked her if she would like either decaf or regular coffee. Then the woman stood up and started screaming and beating on the waiter with a chair. She was arrested for assault, but in court, it turns out the waiter 'harassed' her by asking whether she wanted coffee or not. Sounds totally ridiculous, right? Then she sued the waiter and the cafe for 30,000 dollars for pain and suffering. WTF? The waiter had his arms, one leg, and his neck broken in the assault, yet the WOMAN was sueing for pain and suffering. How the fuck does a waiter asking you what kind of coffee you want count as pain and suffering and harrasment!? Fortunately, there were plenty of witnesses in the cafe at the time, and they testified that the waiter only asked her if she wanted anything, and didn't harrass her in anyway. The lawsuit was thrown out and the woman got a year in jail. The waiter was given 10,000 dollars to pay for his medical bills by the woman's parents. So, there was justice here, in anycase, but this thing happens far too often, and alot of times the lawsuit is NOT thrown out.

[neoolong]

This reminds me of a certain lawsuit in my town that ended only a week ago. Here it is:
This woman was sitting at a table in the local cafe when a waiter came up and asked her if she would like either decaf or regular coffee. Then the woman stood up and started screaming and beating on the waiter with a chair. She was arrested for assault, but in court, it turns out the waiter 'harassed' her by asking whether she wanted coffee or not. Sounds totally ridiculous, right? Then she sued the waiter and the cafe for 30,000 dollars for pain and suffering. WTF? The waiter had his arms, one leg, and his neck broken in the assault, yet the WOMAN was sueing for pain and suffering. How the fuck does a waiter asking you what kind of coffee you want count as pain and suffering and harrasment!? Fortunately, there were plenty of witnesses in the cafe at the time, and they testified that the waiter only asked her if she wanted anything, and didn't harrass her in anyway. The lawsuit was thrown out and the woman got a year in jail. The waiter was given 10,000 dollars to pay for his medical bills by the woman's parents. So, there was justice here, in anycase, but this thing happens far too often, and alot of times the lawsuit is NOT thrown out.

Yes, this is bad, but,

I think she should have taken the decaf.

[Keevan_Colton]

Here we have "wasting police time" most things of a stupid and frivilous nature get rightly laughed at...

[Joe]

As Wong said in his communism essay, when you grant people freedom, they will abuse it. Well I say certain abuse can and should be punished criminally, or civilly.


Intellectual Property Law

It's well known how companies, and even individuals abuse thier IP "rights" to extort and harm others. This despicable practice causes innocents billions of dollars possibly.


Bogus patents are granted everyday, and the owners of those patents turn around and use them to extort poor defenseless business owners. Even worse are hidden patents on things that become industry standards, and then the owner turns around and uses those patents to extort the entire nation!

Such behavior should not be tolerated, and criminal sanctions should be imposed to prevent such immoral behavior.

Well, I know I'm pretty far out on what most would consider the lunatic fringe, but I tend to agree with this notion, however I think the correct solution is to get rid of the 14-20 year government enforced monopoly-rights we call a "patent" altogether. A patent is by no means a grant of freedom, given that patents would not exist in a completely free society.

Another ridiculous abuse of patent rights occurs with certain pharmeceutical companies who acquire patents than charge insane prices on drugs that would be much, much lower priced in a competitive market.

[Faram]

Sorry but I have to do this

Nelson mode

Points Finger HA HA

/Nelson mode

That's what you get when lawyers run a nation

[Joe]

Sorry but I have to do this

Nelson mode

Points Finger HA HA

/Nelson mode

That's what you get when lawyers run a nation

*groan* Lawyers don't run our nation...

[Lord Pounder]

That Waiter/Customer thing reminds me of a story that happened in England. Two hobo's burgled a guys farm. The Farmer caught them in the act and gave one of them both barrels of his shot gun and who do you think went to jail, yeah you guessed it the farmer who was defending his home. I am slightly left of centre as my politics goes but even I admit when liberals and gangsters run the place crime is gonna inflate.

[Wicked Pilot]

*groan* Lawyers don't run our nation...

No, but the politicians they finance run a large chunk of it.

[RedImperator]

Well, I know I'm pretty far out on what most would consider the lunatic fringe, but I tend to agree with this notion, however I think the correct solution is to get rid of the 14-20 year government enforced monopoly-rights we call a "patent" altogether. A patent is by no means a grant of freedom, given that patents would not exist in a completely free society.

Another ridiculous abuse of patent rights occurs with certain pharmeceutical companies who acquire patents than charge insane prices on drugs that would be much, much lower priced in a competitive market.

So how many companies do you think would bother investing millions of dollars into developing new technologies or products if any yahoo could legally reverse engineer it and sell a duplicate for cheaper, hmm? Ditto for drugs--do you think Pfizer would spend 20 years and $500 million dollars for each drug that hits the market if Bob's Drug Company could legally sell a generic version for half the price the next day? I agree patent law can be abused, but you'd throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Joe]

Well, I know I'm pretty far out on what most would consider the lunatic fringe, but I tend to agree with this notion, however I think the correct solution is to get rid of the 14-20 year government enforced monopoly-rights we call a "patent" altogether. A patent is by no means a grant of freedom, given that patents would not exist in a completely free society.

Another ridiculous abuse of patent rights occurs with certain pharmeceutical companies who acquire patents than charge insane prices on drugs that would be much, much lower priced in a competitive market.

So how many companies do you think would bother investing millions of dollars into developing new technologies or products if any yahoo could legally reverse engineer it and sell a duplicate for cheaper, hmm? Ditto for drugs--do you think Pfizer would spend 20 years and $500 million dollars for each drug that hits the market if Bob's Drug Company could legally sell a generic version for half the price the next day? I agree patent law can be abused, but you'd throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What, so there would be no short-term benefit from simply being the first to have a new innovative product on the market? Companies would just have to keep their products competitive and up-to-date rather than just sitting on them from 20 years at the expense of the consumer.

[RedImperator]

Well, I know I'm pretty far out on what most would consider the lunatic fringe, but I tend to agree with this notion, however I think the correct solution is to get rid of the 14-20 year government enforced monopoly-rights we call a "patent" altogether. A patent is by no means a grant of freedom, given that patents would not exist in a completely free society.

Another ridiculous abuse of patent rights occurs with certain pharmeceutical companies who acquire patents than charge insane prices on drugs that would be much, much lower priced in a competitive market.

So how many companies do you think would bother investing millions of dollars into developing new technologies or products if any yahoo could legally reverse engineer it and sell a duplicate for cheaper, hmm? Ditto for drugs--do you think Pfizer would spend 20 years and $500 million dollars for each drug that hits the market if Bob's Drug Company could legally sell a generic version for half the price the next day? I agree patent law can be abused, but you'd throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What, so there would be no short-term benefit from simply being the first to have a new innovative product on the market? Companies would just have to keep their products competitive and up-to-date rather than just sitting on them from 20 years at the expense of the consumer.

Not if the cost of developing an innovation cannot be made back in the time it would take another company to duplicate it, which applies to most high tech developments as well as perscription drugs. You'd have to rely on universities and government-funded labs for all your innovations.

[Joe]

So how many companies do you think would bother investing millions of dollars into developing new technologies or products if any yahoo could legally reverse engineer it and sell a duplicate for cheaper, hmm? Ditto for drugs--do you think Pfizer would spend 20 years and $500 million dollars for each drug that hits the market if Bob's Drug Company could legally sell a generic version for half the price the next day? I agree patent law can be abused, but you'd throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What, so there would be no short-term benefit from simply being the first to have a new innovative product on the market? Companies would just have to keep their products competitive and up-to-date rather than just sitting on them from 20 years at the expense of the consumer.

Not if the cost of developing an innovation cannot be made back in the time it would take another company to duplicate it, which applies to most high tech developments as well as perscription drugs. You'd have to rely on universities and government-funded labs for all your innovations.

But companies can still protect their products long enough through trade secrets and licensing to make a substantial profit off of them. Not to mention that patent law actually discourages further innovation or improvement of patented items, given that companies will have no reason to spend additional money on the R&D that would normally be needed to keep their product(s) competitive due to the their exclusive rights. In any case, it's not like we have data from some alternate U.S. universe where patent law never existed to compare against, but given the nature of property rights and the wonders of competition it seems likely, to me at least, that we could do without patent law.

[RedImperator]

What, so there would be no short-term benefit from simply being the first to have a new innovative product on the market? Companies would just have to keep their products competitive and up-to-date rather than just sitting on them from 20 years at the expense of the consumer.

Not if the cost of developing an innovation cannot be made back in the time it would take another company to duplicate it, which applies to most high tech developments as well as perscription drugs. You'd have to rely on universities and government-funded labs for all your innovations.

But companies can still protect their products long enough through trade secrets and licensing to make a substantial profit off of them. Not to mention that patent law actually discourages further innovation or improvement of patented items, given that companies will have no reason to spend additional money on the R&D that would normally be needed to keep their product(s) competitive due to the their exclusive rights.

You're missing the point. Under your system, there would be no innovation because it would not be profitable to innovate. It makes no economic sense to invest millions in research and development if your competitors can legally copy the design down to the last bolt, circuit, or carbon atom and sell it for less than you can, because you're trying to recoup the costs of research and development. Trade secrets might work for behind the scenes things like manufacturing processes, at least temporarily, but products on the open market can be reverse-engineered. And if you're depending on trade secrets and not legal protection for something like an innovative new manufacturing process, you run the risk of having a single disgruntled engineer bankrupting your company by selling its secrets to the highest bidder. As for patents stifiling innovation, how is it that competition will drive innovation in a patent-free world but not in a world with patents? If another company develops a nifty new process or product that's suddenly made them more profitable than you, what is the solution? Do you sit on your obsolete patent for 20 years or do you invent something better? As opposed to your system, where the proper response to someone else inventing a better mousetrap is to pick one up at Wal-Mart and tell your engineers to build a copy of it.

[Joe]

Not if the cost of developing an innovation cannot be made back in the time it would take another company to duplicate it, which applies to most high tech developments as well as perscription drugs. You'd have to rely on universities and government-funded labs for all your innovations.

But companies can still protect their products long enough through trade secrets and licensing to make a substantial profit off of them. Not to mention that patent law actually discourages further innovation or improvement of patented items, given that companies will have no reason to spend additional money on the R&D that would normally be needed to keep their product(s) competitive due to the their exclusive rights.

You're missing the point. Under your system, there would be no innovation because it would not be profitable to innovate. It makes no economic sense to invest millions in research and development if your competitors can legally copy the design down to the last bolt, circuit, or carbon atom and sell it for less than you can, because you're trying to recoup the costs of research and development. Trade secrets might work for behind the scenes things like manufacturing processes, at least temporarily, but products on the open market can be reverse-engineered. And if you're depending on trade secrets and not legal protection for something like an innovative new manufacturing process, you run the risk of having a single disgruntled engineer bankrupting your company by selling its secrets to the highest bidder. As for patents stifiling innovation, how is it that competition will drive innovation in a patent-free world but not in a world with patents? If another company develops a nifty new process or product that's suddenly made them more profitable than you, what is the solution? Do you sit on your obsolete patent for 20 years or do you invent something better? As opposed to your system, where the proper response to someone else inventing a better mousetrap is to pick one up at Wal-Mart and tell your engineers to build a copy of it.

\

I'm not denying that certain inventions would have likely not come about had it not been for patent law; what I'm saying is, there are probably just as many inventions (if not more) that didn't come about because of patent law. It rewards certain innovations while stifling others.

Not to mention unique situations; suppose Inventor A and Inventor B come up with (roughly) the same product at the same time, but Inventor A gets his patent processed more quickly, and Inventor B gets the shaft despite displaying equal innovation.

And as for your second case, where patents become largely obsolete due to other superior products, well, that is indeed common, but also common is my first case, where companies just sit on their inventions for years without making significant improvements to them at the expense of the consumer. This is especially true with certain pharmaceutical products. Patents also give patent-holders the right to sue individuals whom they feel have created products or processes too similar to theirs, adding an additional layer of discouragement. Although, maybe companies would have enough left for R&D if they didn't devote so much of their money to suing the shit out of people for patent infringement...

First lesson of free-market economics: competition is a good thing. Competition is a more than adequate means of encouraging innovation concerning products that cannot be patented but still cost millions in R&D; why should it not be for products that can be patented?

As a sidenote, I don't think the US Patent Office is very well-equipped to handle patents concerning newer innovations in technology. Case in point: British Telecom's patent on Hyperlinks, amazon.com's patent on one-click purchasing.

[Mr Bean]

First off, We can Read RedImperator and Durran, Please don't quote the last five very long posts made, it strechs out the page unessarly

Second
If you want to follow the money, Follow the Trial Lawyers, When Bush Purpose Limiting Pain and Suffering to $250,000 WHO jumps up and down and screams unfair


Nevermind Pain and Suffering is Seperate from Damages, Pain and Suffering is what gives the US Legal System the term "Jackpot Justice" While a Smoker of thirty years might get 1 Million in Recompsation for his Medical Bills, he also gets Pain and Suffering damages, which can ranage from ten thousand Dollers to eighty billion

Remeber there is no limit on Pain and Suffer as of now, Pain and Suffering damages are SEPERATE and awarded IN ADDITION to Compesation damages

Anyway when a Republican pushs forth a Bill and Bush backs him, Who jumps up and down and screams UNFAIR(*Hint its the same Party that has reisted Caps on anything for the past fourty years)

[Joe]

First off, We can Read RedImperator and Durran, Please don't quote the last five very long posts made, it strechs out the page unessarly

Second
If you want to follow the money, Follow the Trial Lawyers, When Bush Purpose Limiting Pain and Suffering to $250,000 WHO jumps up and down and screams unfair


Nevermind Pain and Suffering is Seperate from Damages, Pain and Suffering is what gives the US Legal System the term "Jackpot Justice" While a Smoker of thirty years might get 1 Million in Recompsation for his Medical Bills, he also gets Pain and Suffering damages, which can ranage from ten thousand Dollers to eighty billion

Remeber there is no limit on Pain and Suffer as of now, Pain and Suffering damages are SEPERATE and awarded IN ADDITION to Compesation damages

Anyway when a Republican pushs forth a Bill and Bush backs him, Who jumps up and down and screams UNFAIR(*Hint its the same Party that has reisted Caps on anything for the past fourty years)

No problem, Bean, I'll stop with the full quoting.

Economic damage is subjective, mate. I'm not quite ready to give up my due process right to just recompensation for the full measure of my damages on the basis of a few lousy decisions which are not indicative of a general trend. There's no shortage of anecdotal stories out there dealing with exorbitant awards; what there is a shortage of, however, is evidence that such exorbitant awards are the rule rather than the exception.

[Mr Bean]

Economic damage is subjective, mate

No its not, If you worked at a 80,00 a Year Job assuming you got a 20% Rasie every year for Thirty years(Which you won't in any job) You still won't make over 30 Million in 30 Years working there, Its very Easy to set hard-caps on Economic damage, They assume that if you had done whatever yo done in a very best case senarior(IE the 20% Raise ever year) and give you that much money

I'm not quite ready to give up my due process right to just recompensation for the full measure of my damages on the basis of a few lousy decisions which are not indicative of a general trend.

You do relise that means 11 people can put ANY company out of business? THERE IS NO CAP AT ALL, Classic example If spill McDonalds hot Coffie on yourself in Calforina and the Jury awards you Seventy Trillion Dollers the Judge can only cut the away by 80% by Fedural Law, That means you could put that McDonalds out of business in a heartbeat and the parent Company as well as they would be force to foot the bill if you sueded them
THERE IS NO CAP AT ALL, If 11 people want to award somone seventy billion dollers cause you bumed into them, don't you see somthing wrong with that?

There's no shortage of anecdotal stories out there dealing with exorbitant awards; what there is a shortage of, however, is evidence that such exorbitant awards are the rule rather than the exception.

If you don't have a shortage of Anecdotal storys, they are not Anecdotal, they are a tread, your contradited yourself in your own words

Furthermore most of these Companys go out of Busniess if they lose these awards
And to get back to the main point
Your telling me you don't see a problem with the fact a Jury can award you onto of the millions you will get for Economic damage, Onto of that they can give you ANYTHING? If you want to find a trend Look at Malpratice Insurance, You know its skyrocketed in the past twenty years thanks to hoards of malpratice suits, It does not matter if they are valid or not(According a friend of mine who's Father is a ER Suregon roughly 80% are frivolious) They still cost the insurance Companys money which gets passed onto Docotors, and when somone wins a case and gets awarded fifty million in pain and suffering for botched leg surgery which leaves the suffer only with a limp then every Doctor, Note EVERY Doctor's Insurance goes up a good 1-2% with it rising every year by rougyl 5% since 82

Yes thats right Malpatice inusrance has nearly trippled in cost in 82, TRIPLED, Can you think where you would be if you Car Insurance Tripled in Ten years?

[Joe]

Economic damage is subjective, mate

No its not, If you worked at a 80,00 a Year Job assuming you got a 20% Rasie every year for Thirty years(Which you won't in any job) You still won't make over 30 Million in 30 Years working there, Its very Easy to set hard-caps on Economic damage, They assume that if you had done whatever yo done in a very best case senarior(IE the 20% Raise ever year) and give you that much money

I'm not saying people should be entitled to gigantic rewards just because they feel that way; I'm saying people should have the chance to argue their entitlement to huge rewards in front of a judge and jury, in the case that they may actually be deserving. Limiting pain & suffering damages would take away this right.

I'm not quite ready to give up my due process right to just recompensation for the full measure of my damages on the basis of a few lousy decisions which are not indicative of a general trend.

You do relise that means 11 people can put ANY company out of business? THERE IS NO CAP AT ALL, Classic example If spill McDonalds hot Coffie on yourself in Calforina and the Jury awards you Seventy Trillion Dollers the Judge can only cut the away by 80% by Fedural Law, That means you could put that McDonalds out of business in a heartbeat and the parent Company as well as they would be force to foot the bill if you sueded them
THERE IS NO CAP AT ALL, If 11 people want to award somone seventy billion dollers cause you bumed into them, don't you see somthing wrong with that?

Ah, the McDonald's coffee case, the most misunderstood and abused case in the history of tort law. First of all, McDonald's dug their own grave on this one; they could have settled with the woman for $20,000, a reasonable sum concerning the extent of her damages (for the coffee WAS too hot, McDonald's had received complaints about it before) but refused. The jury awarded her only around three million in punitive damages (after slashing her compensatory damages by 20 percent, no less, due to contributory negligence), but the judge slashed it down to only about half a million. The McDonald's coffee case is hardly the ridiculous tort case it is so often made out to be. Furthermore, last I checked, there were not a great deal of companies being put out of business by ridiculous tort claims.

There's no shortage of anecdotal stories out there dealing with exorbitant awards; what there is a shortage of, however, is evidence that such exorbitant awards are the rule rather than the exception.

If you don't have a shortage of Anecdotal storys, they are not Anecdotal, they are a tread, your contradited yourself in your own words


Furthermore most of these Companys go out of Busniess if they lose these awards
And to get back to the main point
Your telling me you don't see a problem with the fact a Jury can award you onto of the millions you will get for Economic damage, Onto of that they can give you ANYTHING? If you want to find a trend Look at Malpratice Insurance, You know its skyrocketed in the past twenty years thanks to hoards of malpratice suits, It does not matter if they are valid or not(According a friend of mine who's Father is a ER Suregon roughly 80% are frivolious) They still cost the insurance Companys money which gets passed onto Docotors, and when somone wins a case and gets awarded fifty million in pain and suffering for botched leg surgery which leaves the suffer only with a limp then every Doctor, Note EVERY Doctor's Insurance goes up a good 1-2% with it rising every year by rougyl 5% since 82

Yes thats right Malpatice inusrance has nearly trippled in cost in 82, TRIPLED, Can you think where you would be if you Car Insurance Tripled
in Ten years?

The fact that there are more than a few anecdotal stories does not change the fact that they are anecdotal stories, and typically are used as subsitutes for actual, statistical evidence concerning exorbitant jury awards.

As for medical malpractice? Well, let's see, the insurance companies (health and others) don't often reveal their figures of verdicts and awards in order to make their case for award caps, they just throw a bunch of colorful anecdotes at the problem like I mentioned above. Estimates (not from the insurance companies, of course) place the average medical malpractice settlement at around $30,000. Furthermore, in states that have placed limits on various settlements, there has been no real effect on insurance costs; they're just as expensive as anywhere else.

[Joe]

And as for your 5% a year claim, that really isn't THAT much beyond the rate of inflation.

[Darth Wong]

You need to adopt the Canadian approach to lawsuits:

1) Damages are set by a judge, not a jury, following specific rules. No "punitive" awards, thus no "lawsuit lottery" mentality.
2) Streamlined discovery: the plaintiff must show the need for each and every piece of evidence demanded from the defendant, rather than being able to indiscriminately demand vast amounts of paperwork which will crush the defendant under a mountain of legal costs.
3) Loser pays. In cases where the judge feels the plaintiff may not be acting in good faith, the plaintiff may even be required to put up a bond for the defendant's projected legal costs BEFORE the trial.

The American approach to lawsuits is simply insane, and is a clear product of lawyers lobbying the government to create laws which harm the public but help their profitability.

As for the patent issue, the justification for patents is a good one, but the duration of patents should depend on the industry. A 17-year patent makes sense in the automobile business, where 20 years is a technological generation. But in the computer business, 17 years is an eternity. Modern software development houses spend an inordinate amount of time researching patents before they can write anything. Computer-related patents should have a set duration of 4 years max.

Of course, it goes without saying that stupid or frivolous patents should be dismissed and/or retroactively revoked; there are far too many computer patents which fail the "non-obvious" criterion (believe it or not, Microsoft has a patent on the principle of "distributed computing", even though they were one of the LAST to implement it). There should also be clear exemptions; just as equations cannot be patented, file formats and network protocols should be exempt from patents. It is utterly absurd when a company like Microsoft tries to build proprietary communications protocols and make them "industry standards" so that competitors are literally frozen out by law, regardless of the quality of their product.

[Joe]

You need to adopt the Canadian approach to lawsuits:

1) Damages are set by a judge, not a jury, following specific rules. No "punitive" awards, thus no "lawsuit lottery" mentality.
2) Streamlined discovery: the plaintiff must show the need for each and every piece of evidence demanded from the defendant, rather than being able to indiscriminately demand vast amounts of paperwork which will crush the defendant under a mountain of legal costs.
3) Loser pays. In cases where the judge feels the plaintiff may not be acting in good faith, the plaintiff may even be required to put up a bond for the defendant's projected legal costs BEFORE the trial.

Ah, nothing worse than seeing a Wong post and wondering how to answer. Fortunately, this one's not so difficult...

1) The judge can already significantly cut awards. Punitive damages are not as much of a concern as they appear to be; they are awarded only in 3.3 percent of cases and average about $38,000. Furthermore, they are most common in intentional torts, where malice was clear.
2) Agreed.
3) Agreed.

The American approach to lawsuits is simply insane, and is a clear product of lawyers lobbying the government to create laws which harm the public but help their profitability.

Well, that's not exactly true, the reformers are the ones who want to create the new laws, for the most part; the advocates are usually interested in upholding existing laws.

As for the patent issue, the justification for patents is a good one, but the duration of patents should depend on the industry. A 17-year patent makes sense in the automobile business, where 20 years is a technological generation. But in the computer business, 17 years is an eternity. Modern software development houses spend an inordinate amount of time researching patents before they can write anything. Computer-related patents should have a set duration of 4 years max.

Of course, it goes without saying that stupid or frivolous patents should be dismissed and/or retroactively revoked; there are far too many computer patents which fail the "non-obvious" criterion (believe it or not, Microsoft has a patent on the principle of "distributed computing", even though they were one of the LAST to implement it). There should also be clear exemptions; just as equations cannot be patented, file formats and network protocols should be exempt from patents. It is utterly absurd when a company like Microsoft tries to build proprietary communications protocols and make them "industry standards" so that competitors are literally frozen out by law, regardless of the quality of their product.

Hmm, I still think that whatever innovation is encouraged by patents is going to be largely offset by the discouragement that will inevitably result, courtesy of the law of unintended consequences. That being said, it is very clear that current patent law is just not going to work for our technological age. Ridiculously broad patents are granted to lots of companies, MS is just one of them. Not to mention the case of British Telecom getting the patent on hypertext; British Telecom didn't even invent hypertext, they just got the patent on it.

[Keevan_Colton]

Then again you might add there are a lot of really fucking stupid laws out there....such as the dickhead that laid claim to the moon and has been selling it....without ever even having been there.....

As for the patents, I think the shorter life on the patents in certain fields would help a lot to ofset the problems they create.

Lawsuits :- It does seem to be a lottery for stupidity.

Do something sufficiently stupid and you are set for life....that doesnt seem very sensible to me....especially the cases of idiots who smoke.....

As for the remark its the reformists that want to alter these things....remember there were people changing things before that....those are the ones who changed it to how it is now.....

[Mr Bean]

I'm not saying people should be entitled to gigantic rewards just because they feel that way; I'm saying people should have the chance to argue their entitlement to huge rewards in front of a judge and jury, in the case that they may actually be deserving. Limiting pain & suffering damages would take away this right.

Are you MAD?!
Can you give one good fucking reason for why somone deserves Millions?
You relise how your contradicting yourself don't you? If you can't provided a reason WHY people deserve Gigantic awards the only other reasons is Because "They feel like it" somthing which you say your aginst.
Can you provided me one credable reason why anyone deserves any extra money at all when they will already have every Medical Cost covered IN ADDITION to the widely exaggerated Salery you will be payed for the rest of your life for doing absoulty nothing?

*Useless Rambling on the McDonalds Case Sniped
Furthermore, last I checked, there were not a great deal of companies being put out of business by ridiculous tort claims.

Prehaps you need to open your eyes and look at the number of HMO's going out of Busniess, Or Drug Companys that either fail or have to merge to surive, Take a closer look at the stock performance of Companys after getting hit with redicioulious damages, Tobacco companys are only holding on because of their deep-pockets but if they loose another round of Lawsuits they are done for

The fact that there are more than a few anecdotal stories does not change the fact that they are anecdotal stories, and typically are used as subsitutes for actual, statistical evidence concerning exorbitant jury awards.

Contradiction, Anecdotal refers to an uncommon thing, What is not uncommon is redicously high rewards by Jurys, What is not uncommon is them getting slashed by Judges by huge amounts but then some states don't let Judges slash it that much or put a Cap on the Slash amount meaning when all's said and done Seventy Billion Dollers is not Seventy Billion any more but only 17 Billion..... Yep... onnnllly 17 Billion

But back to the point, It only NEEDS to happen once
To put it another way and use a classic example, How many people need to die from Asbestous Posioning before we start doing somthing about it?
How many Companys need to be driven out of busniess before you willing to get off your moral high horse and relise there is no one on this planet who deserves Billions no matter what was done to them

Furthermore, in states that have placed limits on various settlements, there has been no real effect on insurance costs; they're just as expensive as anywhere else.

I see, I guess thats why the NY Post writes all those storys about Doctors going on Strike "for fun" instead of the fact that they are being driven out of busniess by insane insurance expesnives

Or maybe you forgot the fact that few HMO's or Insurance Companys are confined only to a Single State and are instead Nation Wide, Or Prehaps you forgot the fact that in states that don't have limits drive up the costs for everyone else as "GASP" guess what? Thats how Economics work


And lastly

And as for your 5% a year claim, that really isn't THAT much beyond the rate of inflation.

Thats in addition to Inflation
The acutal Figure is roughly 9.5% a year according to my Surgeon friend, try that one out for size and compare