by IBM. Nor was there evidence SCO actually owned any of the copyrights it sued over. Certainly, justice delayed is justice denied . There is more. US court proceedings are well known to regularly bankrupt the innocent with no recourse. The whole concept of patent trolls is only possible in a system with punitive and statutory damages and no provisions for reclaiming costs for unjust suits. Given the level of dangerous non-sense that is printed in product ads, I am in favor of some regulation in principle. The only regulation I want to see is about full disclosure on what's in the thing, and any information about materials that are known (by the state of California or otherwise) to be dangerous. All the other marketing claims will sort themselves out in the market. That the UK libel laws are equally dysfunctional is no excuse. I have never defended the way the courts go over here. To the contrary, I am vocal about how they are fucked up. It's just your supercilious attitude that "blah, blah, Europe better, blah, blah" that simply isn't always true in the general case of court laws. I find it rude and condescending to say "we're better" rather than to focus on the problem. The problem isn't that Germany "was better" in the case of SCO; the problem is that the US is bad. Likewise, the problem isn't that the US is better in the case of libel than the UK; the problem is that in