And a proper defense can cost well more then a Judge might be willing to
allow.
Additionally, from what we've seen over the years in cases, it's
the rare case (in my own recollection) that ends up awarded costs.
And
the even significantly more rare case that is finally ruled as frivolous.
"Frivolous" appears to be a might high bar to have to cross.
Was the
Pants Suit Judge case considered to ultimately be frivolous? Or just heavily
mistaken? I can't remember.
Then there was the guy who initiated
lawsuits against everyone including God who was finally deemed a vexatious
litigant after an obscene number of such lawsuits. I'd think the decision could
have come much sooner.
Then there's SCOG who have yet to provide - in my
humble opinion - reasonable grounds for their lawsuit against IBM. In which the
evidence that came to light showed Santa Cruz had ordered an evalation into
copyright infringement turning up nothing - a report that made it to Mr.
McBride's attention. Caldera had another report done, also turning up nothing.
How is that not classified as a baseless lawsuit?
True... the company is
pretty much dead while pretending to be in it's death throes... but if the
individuals responsible for those choices are not held accountable, what's to
prevent them from initiating the same tactics in a new company? Speaking of
which, I wonder where Darl is nowadays.
Frivolous... baseless...
vexatious.... seem to be mighty high bars to reach indeed.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|