site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1607 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 27, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was having a conversation with someone about how rich people or large corporations being able to afford the best lawyers gives them a massive advantage in leveraging the legal system as a weapon against smaller actors. My instinctive naive solution was to enact a rule that any legal expenses must be matched by an equal donation to the opponent’s legal fund. The idea being that if you genuinely believe the law is on your side, you shouldn’t have to outspent the opposing side by X million dollars to prove it. Supposing this rule magically came to be, would this actually solve the issue and are there any major flaws/unintended consequences I've overlooked?

Alternatively, suppose the US had a true two-party state (instead of just a de facto one, since it gets more complicated with more than two opposing factions). Would an analogous rule for campaign contributions (any contribution to Democrats must be matched by an equal donation to Republicans and vice versa) work to reduce big-money influence in politics?

Supposing this rule magically came to be, would this actually solve the issue and are there any major flaws/unintended consequences I've overlooked?

If you get sued, does this rule still apply? In other words, does the defendant have to supply money to the plaintiff's legal fund? Because if so I think patent trolls get 100x worse with this proposal.

The troll could also be his own lawyer, or basically subsidised by him to "bring him work".

Doesn't the plaintiff need to hire lawyers to draw up and file the case? I fully admit to ignorance here, but I imagined the plaintiff as first-mover, so they would pay an amount for a legal team to create a suit and deposit the equivalent amount for the defendant to hire a team an create a response? Any extra the defendant spends must be declared and must be matched for the plaintiff to spend, then this repeats iteratively?

Yeah. Patent trolls acquire portfolios of vague patents, and then mass-file suits against companies that might plausibly be argued to be infringing those patents, in the hopes that the company settles to make them go away. Filing is cheap for the plaintiff (patent troll).

If the defendant (the company accuded of infringement) fights the case, they have to spend a ton of money on expert witnesses, discovery, etc.

Under this proposal, the defendant would, in addition to the usual expenses, also have to contribute to the patent troll's war chest.

If the patent troll and the legal firm representing them, you could end up with the following situation

  1. Patent troll cheaply files hard-to-defend suit, contributes $500 to defendant's legal fund
  2. Defendant decides to fight case, spends $100,000 on expert witnesses and discovery, then contributes $99,500 to plaintiff's legal fund
  3. Plaintiff spends $99,500 on the firm they hired to drag the case out as much as possible and otherwise do whatever they want at astronomical rates
  4. Plaintiff loses their meritless case
  5. Situation is
    • Plaintiff has lost $1,000 ($500 on filing fees, $500 on defendant'slegal fund)
    • Defendant has lost $199,000 ($100,000 on expenses, $99,500 on plaintiff's defense fund, minus the $500 received from plaintiff)
    • Plaintiff's legal team has made $99,500 doing a few hours of easy work
  6. Plaintiff's legal firm kicks back $50,000 to plaintiff under the table.

The plaintiff gains $50,000 every time they file and lose a case in this system.

Is the burden of proof not on the plaintiff? I thought it was almost always intrinsically harder to prosecute a patent case than to defend. Broadly, aren't differences usually easier to spot than similarities?

Of course, kick-backs of any sort would have to be heavily regulated and harshly punished.

Is the burden of proof not on the plaintiff? I thought it was almost always intrinsically harder to prosecute a patent case than to defend

It is fairly hard to prosecute a patent case and win if the defendant fights you. But if the defendant doesn't defend themselves pretty easy to win, it's a civil case so the standard is preponderance of evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt (disclaimer: ianal).

Of course, kick-backs of any sort would have to be heavily regulated and harshly punished.

Why don't we start with getting this proposal implemented robustly since it seems to be a hard prerequisite, and see where we end up at that point?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats