From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: The World
	<scs.725032679@wotan.iti.org> <1992Dec23.033508.3126@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
	<scs.725118848@wotan.iti.org> <1992Dec25.021516.19164@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
	<BZS.92Dec24225037@world.std.com> <bhayden.725292489@teal>
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 21:27:31 GMT


>Most lawyers citing cases have no idea of how vigorous the defense
>was - so the judicial system really is that simple.

Could you give us some hint where you derive this broad and
authoritative swath of wisdom from? And does this include a case where
there was no defense, as was being discussed?

>One example that
>is close to mind is Lotus v. Paperback Book.

Ah, so Paperback book, like Jolix, were financially incapable of
spending *any* money on an attorney and crumpled immediately without
their day in court?

Or is this just a wild stretch? I know, "but paperback book is so much
smaller thanl lotus! Relatively it is the same!"...quite a stretch, I
mean, they did make it to court and present their side, right?

Ah...here it comes...

>I don't think that Lotus
>has collected anything yet on that judgment, but it served its purpose -
>which became obvious when it was used in Lotus v. Borland. Also, it
>is surprising how many otherwise intelligent attys cited that decision,
>despite the great disparity in resources of the two parties.

Disparity is not the same as a 0 dollar group crumpling immediately
due to lack of *any* commercial interest.

Sure, you sense some sort of unfairness that a $500M company can sue a
$20M company or whatever.

That may or may not be material in any particular case. And if it is
completely true in all cases (as you claim) then we may as well write
off the entire legal system anyhow and just hand the country over to
the Fortune 50 (hmm, maybe we have.)

It's one thing to make a cynical comment with perhaps some truth
behind it, and another to try to work out reality using such
hyperbole!

The case of USL vs BSDI is certainly in the category of Lotus vs
Paperback books, and USL may well win on sheer spending, and that
would be a disgusting travesty of justice and a good clue that we've
reached a level of tyranny of the buck in the US that was never
intended to be: Equal Justice Under The Buck.

(And if you think it *is* a foregone conclusion do you also tell
stories about people who scratch their finger on a tool and manage to
sue the manufacturer and win zillions of dollars? Gee, how does that
work? Surely Stanley or Sears has more money to put on a legal fight
than Joe "Clumsy" Sixpack? No? It's astounding what our capacity is to
deeply believe completely contradictory "facts".)

BUT...the note you answered was responding to "Why didn't USL (also)
sue the Jollitz's?", speculating that perhaps it is something specific
that BSDI did which caused USL to sue them and not the Jollitz's.

The response from me was: The Jollitz's make no money off of this and
one would assume they'd be forced to fold immediately thus YIELDING NO
PRECEDENT.

Anyhow, BSDI is in real danger of being pressured by USL's sheer
ability to spend money, and the result may well be a bad and unfair
precedent that the rest of us will have to live with. One rumor has
USL's spending thus far on the case at around $1M.

But that's a different thread.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi