Do you not feel it's a problem to be charging $50k for a piece of software on a $.20 medium?
No. It doesn't really matter what medium the software is on. Its value is independent of that.
You're not paying for the CD, the valve turning, etc, you're paying off the time built for the expertise and background engineering.
It's not that you're paying him $100 for the expertise to know which valve to turn, it's that there's no one standing next to him who could reliably for $50 or even for $99 know which valve to turn.
You're not paying for his expertise so much as for the scarcity of his expertise.
It seems very unreasonable that a losing party could need to cover so much from their opponents end especially as they get no say in the total stakes.
If it was you paying $50k to your lawyer regardless of whether or not you won, sure, that’s just your choice. This is a $50k extra being thrown at your opponent and there’s no incentive to be reasonable about it because it sounds like your own client doesn’t get hit with it. Idk if it applies in this context but if it goes both ways then you’ve got a prisoners dilemma. Spending more on lawyers increases the probability of winning, but also increases the total pot of lawyer money. That’s so fucked up.
I would vote for you’re liable for at mode the amount you spent on lawyers personally. If they do 50k on a 2k issue and you don’t even get a lawyer, you may lose 2k but they lose 50k. Incentives to escalate lawyer fees sounds stupid as shit to society.
You are paying for protection of consumer rights, not to be lied to and not to be swindled. What are those rights worth to you?
As a company you always have a chance to come to amicable agreement with the customer before the lawyers got involved. Every time you tell a customer to piss off you take the risk that they might take you to court.
But it’s really bad that it’s ok for lawyers to basically encourage you to rack up contingent lawyer expenses. It’s just a toxic system.