undefined | Better HN

0 pointsRetric16y ago0 comments

The assumption is if you have few assets and the insurance then there would be little reason to litigate. Which would drive down the cost of the insurance.

0 comments

joe_the_user16y ago

Actually,

Here is where insurance can actually increase litigation: a person without assets often isn't worth suing but a person with the deep pockets of an insurance company can become worth suing.

I still think it's good idea to create an anti-patent legal pool but it's important to understand all the angles...

RetricOP16y ago

The pool would only cover the cost of litigation not the cost of the settlement. So there is nothing additional to gain gain from suing. (Other than an attempt to put the legal pool out of buissness but that could be extremely cost prohibitive.)

The problem would be maintaining a reputation as someone willing to pay for long legal battles.

joe_the_user16y ago

In some jurisdictions, especially TEXAS, a person appealing a verdict once had to post a bond equivalent to the settlement. Thus being able to fight and being able to settle were linked. I don't know if Texas still has this stricture in place, however. It seems really dodgey but it is perhaps one of many reasons the state is a favorite of patent trolls.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

joe_the_user16y ago

Actually,

Here is where insurance can actually increase litigation: a person without assets often isn't worth suing but a person with the deep pockets of an insurance company can become worth suing.

I still think it's good idea to create an anti-patent legal pool but it's important to understand all the angles...

RetricOP16y ago

The problem would be maintaining a reputation as someone willing to pay for long legal battles.

joe_the_user16y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse