decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
No | 293 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 08:53 PM EDT

I don't know. Personally I think it should be based on how much support for the allegations you have. If you can make a plausible case, you should be allowed to proceed. But when, as is the case here, all your evidence is either nonexistent or has been blown out of the water many times over and you still want to proceed and rack up costs for the other side, I think it's entirely appropriate for you to have to post bond. For every David-vs-Goliath case I've seen at least one where it's a twit suing deep pockets just because they can and maybe they might get lucky and hit the litigation lottery jackpot, and IMO we do not need to encourage that behavior. For a case in point, see... well, SCO v. IBM.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • No - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 12:35 AM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )