Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Suing Disney for heart-stopping ride
- Thread starter madoka
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Corporate suits are almost never in the category of "frivolous" lawsuits because by their nature they seek to resolve a dispute that on the surface is legitimate.
Whether or not SCO had an actual claim may be in doubt, but the claim itself isn't frivolous. Suing for $65 million over a pair of pants, is frivolous. However, you'll note that that case ended as the justice system intended. Even this case ended with SCO simply giving up. You'll be hard pressed to find a case where a jury awarded damages to a frivolous plaintiff.
My point is, the modern concept of a "frivolous lawsuit" is more a media creation than an actual fact. Lawyers, with all their greed and selfishness, are not stupid. They will not take up a case if they don't see good potential. It's one of the best protections we have against lawsuits involving $65 million clothing items.
The main idiocy with the McDonalds suit was that the jury awarded the woman $2.7 million in damages on top of her medical costs (though that number was knocked down by the judge).
The bulk of that $2.7 million was for punitive damages because McDonalds was being arrogant in court, and they knew their coffee makers were defective.
Even after the judge knocked down the total amount, McDonalds quickly settled to prevent an appeal; they probably realized that $2.7 million was not such a bad verdict considering the numerous other burn victims that hadn't come forth.
Corporate suits are almost never in the category of "frivolous" lawsuits because by their nature they seek to resolve a dispute that on the surface is legitimate.
Whether or not SCO had an actual claim may be in doubt, but the claim itself isn't frivolous. Suing for $65 million over a pair of pants, is frivolous. However, you'll note that that case ended as the justice system intended. Even this case ended with SCO simply giving up. You'll be hard pressed to find a case where a jury awarded damages to a frivolous plaintiff.
My point is, the modern concept of a "frivolous lawsuit" is more a media creation than an actual fact. Lawyers, with all their greed and selfishness, are not stupid. They will not take up a case if they don't see good potential. It's one of the best protections we have against lawsuits involving $65 million clothing items.
SCO vs IBM: SCO wanted $5bn (that is 5000 million) for IBM allegedly copying 300 lines of code to which SCO had no copyright. Fifteen million per line of code. I call that frivolous.
And SCO's lawyers were not stupid. They were paid tens of millions of dollars; SCO may not have won their case, but their lawyers certainly did.
They are probably just chavs trying to falsely claim compo...
I admire your superior knowledge of people, that allows you to make such a judgement of people that you have never, ever met in your life.
It doesn't matter how much code is in question, but rather how relevant it is.
The case could be frivolous for other reasons (ie, SCO doesn't have any claim to the code in question), but not over the quantity of material at issue.
SCO would not have continued the case if they didn't see any potential. A good lawyer would have advised the company that the case was poor; to do otherwise would be in violation of legal ethics.
Did any of you read the bit about her being British?
Unless she chose to go private, we don't have medical costs in Britain.
We have a little something called the NHS
Unless she chose to go private, we don't have medical costs in Britain.
We have a little something called the NHS
Ha.. that is great! I love this ride also. One of my favorites at Disneyland California Adventure...
15K seems really low for a lawsuit of this nature.
Did any of you read the bit about her being British?
Unless she chose to go private, we don't have medical costs in Britain.
We have a little something called the NHS
Still, $15k for punitive and other compensatory damages seems very minimal. It's not even enough to cover an attorney's fees for a full blown jury trial. Something's amiss.
Lesseehere...
Yahoo Finance has the Disney market cap at $32.04 billion. At yesterday's close of $17.69, that puts the total outstanding shares somewhere around 1.8 billion (with a "b"). By my math that puts the potential impact of this at something like $0.00000825 per share. Are there any tall buildings near you that you could, you know, throw yourself off? The angst you must be feeling from that potential financial loss must be unbearable...
Did any of you read the bit about her being British?
Unless she chose to go private, we don't have medical costs in Britain.
We have a little something called the NHS
Did you read the bit about her being in the US? Unless she flew back immediately having suffered a heart stoppage and brain haemorrhage, she went to a US hospital where something called the NHS matters diddly squat.