Why is there no push for "the looser pays all the costs" in the US? It works in many countries around the world, and it would prevent unjustified legal bullying.
I see the benefits from both systems, not sure which I would be a proponent of.
I think it is how it works in many countries. Otherwise, what would prevent a party that is sure that it will win to hire 1000 lawyers in the last day of trial just to inflate the costs of the loosing party?
Suing a small entity would take exactly as much lawyers on both sides as suing a huge entity. If you're fighting Bigcorp and they're somehow justifying $10million of lawyers for the case, and you feel that you're right, then you'll be justified in bringing $10million of lawyers on your side, paid in full by them.
There is always a non-zero risk of losing the suit. BigCorp doesn't have to worry as much existential risk if they lose, since the penalty of paying legal fees may not cripple them.