Hacker News Reader

Comment by e1g | Hacker News Reader

It’s tempting to think that being “right” - in principle, objectively, or even legally - gives superpowers over legal proceedings. It doesn’t. Even a brief brush against targeted litigation will clear up this confusion quickly and painfully. You’ll be broke, and therefore defeated by default, long before you’ll be vindicated.

View on HN

This opens up an interesting discussion point. Is there a way to reform the legal system to make it depend less on how much money you have?

edit: I like our current legal system, but I know Europe has the (Roman/Napoleonic?) inquisitorial system, if any Europeans could contribute and note if that has different outcomes? Or just any wild ideas on how to tweak the system to give more equal footing that isn't based on money.

Actually basing the legal system on money might not be the worst. Certainly better than basing it on influence and connections.

About your question: you might like this paper https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

It doesn't offer any answers, and it's about criminal justice; but it's good food for thought about unintended consequences.

I think one thing that would help would be to broaden the number of cases where legal fees can be awarded. Another thing that is not currently the case would be to work on simplifying the legal system to the point where a well educated person can take some time studying the law, at least well enough to defend themselves against baseless accusations. The ABA has made it a point to lobby states in order to increase the number of situations where professional lawyers are required (kind of like what TurboTax has done with the tax code).

Even with a simplified laws and legal proceedings, obviously not everyone would be in a position to defend themselves. However, many of those people could probably find a legally astute relative or friend to help them. There will always be a need for public defenders or something similar, though, since not everyone has a good support network.

To be honest though, I think the only really long term solution is for radical reform to the economy in general is the abolishment of private property. Private property, including intellectual property in particular, is always going to give disproportionate power to the wealthy. We should reward people for actual labor (not necessarily the same amount for the same hours), not because they already have giant stacks of cash.

Well, one obvious alternative would be to decide that everyone has a right to legal support, similar to how most countries have decided that anyone has a right to healthcare. Similar as for healthcare there could be a single payer system for legal support. Everyone could pay a bit more tax, and then get legal support when needed. Main question is how you keep costs under control, and avoid abuse of the system.

Could be done, not sure if it would be a better system...

The US took a step towards that with CASE Act that was recently passed, establishing what is basically a small claims court for copyright infringement. The big problem with the existing situation is attorneys fees can be over $50k for a relatively simple case, and the average case costs over $200k. With the new system the process is streamlined and there is no need to hire an attorney, and attorneys fees will not be awarded to the prevailing party, except in cases of bad faith. The total damages are also limited to $30k, and $15k in statutory damages per infringement, so if you prevail it is less likely to be appealed

Parts of the UK and several EU countries have a similar system with a small claims court for copyright cases under a certain limit with a limited discovery, where attorneys are not needed in addition to the regular courts.

In the UK there is no such thing as a small claims court. A small claim is lodged in a county court. Easily done online.

In England and Wales there is a small claims track in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court

Loser should pay both sides legal fees by default, but the judge should have the discression to change this and also to cap costs based on what is reasonable.

"You’ll be broke, and therefore defeated by default, long before you’ll be vindicated."

Unless maybe the ACLU or EFF take up their defense pro-bono.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com