Try this exercise: consider three situations that end in lawsuits:
1. An employee is fired from his job and sues his former employer on the basis of alleged sexual, racial or racial preference discrimination. The court rules against the employee and finds that he was fired because he consistently was at least an hour late for work.
2. A company that holds a patent on certain color printing methodologies sues Hewlett Packard on the basis that certain HP color printers infringe on the company's patented processes. The court rules in favor of Hewlett Packard and finds no infringement.
3. A neighborhood association brings suit to stop a local company from building a new stamping plant on its property on the grounds that the noise from the new plant will disturb the peace of the area. The court rules in favor of the local company and finds that even if there were additional noise in the area, there was no law or other prohibition against it.
Each of these suits is unnecessary litigation. Are any of the three more frivolous than the others? Not really.
But here is the difference that exists among the three. For one of these situations, president Obama has now strongly come out in favor of allowing the court to require the loser to pay the winner's legal fees. Can you guess which one Obama considers terribly unfair compared to the others? Let me give you a hint. Obama in the past has raised tens of millions from Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are tired of dealing with patent lawsuits year after year. That's right. Obama has now come out for letting courts to impose upon losers in the patent lawsuits the obligation to pay the legal fees of the winner. Meanwhile, Obama has strongly opposed putting the same restrictions on suits regarding employees claims of discrimination or organizations' claims concerning nearby land use.
So we have three similar situations but somehow fairness is only an issue if Obama's big contributors are involved.
1. An employee is fired from his job and sues his former employer on the basis of alleged sexual, racial or racial preference discrimination. The court rules against the employee and finds that he was fired because he consistently was at least an hour late for work.
2. A company that holds a patent on certain color printing methodologies sues Hewlett Packard on the basis that certain HP color printers infringe on the company's patented processes. The court rules in favor of Hewlett Packard and finds no infringement.
3. A neighborhood association brings suit to stop a local company from building a new stamping plant on its property on the grounds that the noise from the new plant will disturb the peace of the area. The court rules in favor of the local company and finds that even if there were additional noise in the area, there was no law or other prohibition against it.
Each of these suits is unnecessary litigation. Are any of the three more frivolous than the others? Not really.
But here is the difference that exists among the three. For one of these situations, president Obama has now strongly come out in favor of allowing the court to require the loser to pay the winner's legal fees. Can you guess which one Obama considers terribly unfair compared to the others? Let me give you a hint. Obama in the past has raised tens of millions from Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are tired of dealing with patent lawsuits year after year. That's right. Obama has now come out for letting courts to impose upon losers in the patent lawsuits the obligation to pay the legal fees of the winner. Meanwhile, Obama has strongly opposed putting the same restrictions on suits regarding employees claims of discrimination or organizations' claims concerning nearby land use.
So we have three similar situations but somehow fairness is only an issue if Obama's big contributors are involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment