Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ceejayoz·

I'd expect some of that injunctive relief to include his paying the other side's substantial legal fees.

View on HN

He's had his assets frozen to ensure he can't get out of paying the legal fees:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bitcoin-high-court-lon...

The norm, as far as I'm aware, is that the losing side is on the hook for the winner's legal fees. Seems like a pretty good deterrent against bringing frivolous claims.

Some pros, some cons. It can exacerbate power imbalances; Google can afford to be on the hook for a $20M legal team, but you probably can't.

The policy probably made more sense back when $20M legal teams didn't exist

That's true, in certain situations, companies can use the system to make it painfully risky to attempt to take action against them.

There's a very different business culture in the UK when it comes to legal threats and I suspect the fact the loser pays both sides plays a big part in that. As a business owner, I'm happy to avoid more commonplace legal nonsense, even if it means there's potential for huge companies to abuse it.

It's not any and all costs. The court makes the loser pay costs that are proportional and reasonable given the issues in the case. Which makes sense as otherwise Google could indeed tell its lawyers to go on a billing spree to hurt the counterparty if they lose.

(Not a lawyer)

From reports wright was already spending a multiple of what his opponents were spending, the risk of having to pay our legal costs was probably not a major factor in his thinking.

He essentially bragged on his slack that the relative costs didn't matter as his goal was ruining his opponents by causing them costs.

A relevant detail is that even though loser pays in the UK they don't pay 100%, so one can potentially make the residual they do pay ruinous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com