Rowling wins copyright infringement case

[HarryT]

Thanks - it's interesting how these things do vary.

[RickyMaveety]

The US system is generally as follows:

1. Not all cases are tried before a jury. The parties to a suit, or the defendant in a criminal case, may opt to have the matter heard without a jury.

2. A case may be bifurcated, such that the guilt and penalty phases of a trial are heard separately. I have never heard of one phase being jury and the other being judge only ... so I think once you have decided on one, that also determines the other.

3. In jury cases, the judge has the power to completely disregard the jury verdict, both with regard to guilt and damages. It's not something that is done lightly, but it has happened. Really, it's sort of a safeguard against "jury nullification" ... where the jury entirely disregards the law because they don't happen to like the law .... or they really like one of the parties.

But, yes .... one of the reasons that attorneys like to argue to a jury is because they are more likely to get an emotional response in the form of a larger damage award.

The whole litigation system is a game I prefer to avoid. I think that's why I went into the transactional side of things. Every court case I've worked on, I've just done the research and sat second (or third) chair. It's an interesting process ... but way too much drama and manipulation for my taste.

[Ak Mike]

With respect, I disagree that the question is whether a judge or a jury sets damages. I've been in numerous situations where the jury was more tight-fisted than a judge would have been. I think the real issue is the legal standard for awarding damages.

To some extent it's a cultural thing. The U.S. has a strong free speech tradition, so it is hard to sue someone here for libel. You would much rather bring a libel lawsuit in the U.K. On the other hand, our individualist traditions lead us to favor in many cases individuals over corporations, so if you are injured by a product you would rather bring your lawsuit in the United States.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

With respect, I disagree that the question is whether a judge or a jury sets damages. I've been in numerous situations where the jury was more tight-fisted than a judge would have been. I think the real issue is the legal standard for awarding damages.

To some extent it's a cultural thing. The U.S. has a strong free speech tradition, so it is hard to sue someone here for libel. You would much rather bring a libel lawsuit in the U.K. On the other hand, our individualist traditions lead us to favor in many cases individuals over corporations, so if you are injured by a product you would rather bring your lawsuit in the United States.

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding your argument.

First, how do you know (for a fact) what a judge would have awarded, as opposed to what a jury did award??

Second, what "legal standard" are you talking about?

Third, you do realize it's not a matter of where someone would "rather" bring a libel or products liability suit. It depends on where the injury occurred.

Fourth, it is not "hard" to sue someone for libel in the United States. Libel and slander are not simply excused by First Amendment rights. There may be proof problems that make it difficult to prevail, but there is nothing difficult about bringing suit.

Fifth, whether or not someone prevails in a products liability case has very little to do with an individualist culture. In fact, the idea that people should be able to be responsible for themselves can often weigh against prevailing in a products liability case. As much as a jury might to a man be less than fond of corporations, there is always that thought that ... "how stupid does someone have to be to get a nerf ball stuck that far up their nose??? And, why exactly should we hold the corporation responsible because the plaintiff was/is a complete moron??"

[Greg Anos]

Yes, but in the general US legal system, there is a tendency to use multiple plantiffs on product liability in order to "shop" for the jusridiction that has historically shown favorable verdicts for the plaintiff's type of case....

[Ak Mike]

Hi, RickyMaveety - sorry you are having trouble understanding.
1. Several items - for example, in one occasion I had a jury zero out a badly injured defendant - the judge was so outraged he set aside the jury verdict. I also recall running across a study showing that for certain medical malpractice claims, federal judges in Federal Tort Claims Act cases tended to average higher awards than juries for comparable non-FTCA medical malpractice claims. All this is consistent with my experience of frequently encountering jury awards that are puzzlingly low.

2. The legal standards to which I refer include, for example the "strict liability" standard for products liability, in which a manufacturer can be held liable even if not negligent.

3. You must not be familiar with the concept of "forum shopping." In a libel case, venue is normally appropriate in any place that the allegedly defamatory statement was made. In the case of a defamatory book, that would be anywhere that the book is sold. A lot of books are sold in the U.S. and the U.K., so you could sue in either place. Similarly with broadcasts.

4. Well, it's not hard to sue someone in the U.S., that's true. You just draw up a complaint and pay a filing fee. But it is hard to win, because we have concepts such as "public figure" and "actual malice" that are absent in other countries and provide strong defenses to defamation suits.

5. On your last point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. In countries like Japan it is nearly impossible to sue corporations because of the organization-orientation of the country. I think that more structured countries like France and Britain likewise tend to favor organizations over individuals, as compared to the U.S. I agree with your substantive point about individual responsibility, but in a jury trial setting it's usually a lone plaintiff against a big impersonal corporation. The dramatic setting appeals to the U.S. tendency to favor individuals (notwithstanding your entirely correct point that the individual can only prevail by rejecting responsibility for herself).

[acidzebra]

Getting back to Harry Potter, this was too funny to not share;

[Slite]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Getting back to Harry Potter, this was too funny to not share;

HAHAHAHAHAHA! That was hilarious!

[nekokami]

Amusing, but you can make that pattern fit a large number of stories. Robin McKinley's The Blue Sword, for example, which otherwise hardly resembles Harry Potter or Star Wars.

And as we all know, the Harry Potter books were really about Snape.

[axel77]

Well I read in background all the time the jesus passion story. You know, to die for another, to get revived by "ancient magic", this being the strongest act in universe and so on. It wasnt so a crystal clear remake like the King of Narnia, but still the same reuse of the "great master story" of cristian western society.

I just wonder by all the sensation the books now get or not. Imagine 400 years into the future, will they mention JKR in school after they talked about Shakespear or not? I personally doubt it.

[elena]

Originally Posted by nekokami

And as we all know, the Harry Potter books were really about Snape.

<Sevage mode>

I thoroughly second your statement

</Sevage mode>

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

Hi, RickyMaveety - sorry you are having trouble understanding.
1. Several items - for example, in one occasion I had a jury zero out a badly injured defendant - the judge was so outraged he set aside the jury verdict. I also recall running across a study showing that for certain medical malpractice claims, federal judges in Federal Tort Claims Act cases tended to average higher awards than juries for comparable non-FTCA medical malpractice claims. All this is consistent with my experience of frequently encountering jury awards that are puzzlingly low.

2. The legal standards to which I refer include, for example the "strict liability" standard for products liability, in which a manufacturer can be held liable even if not negligent.

3. You must not be familiar with the concept of "forum shopping." In a libel case, venue is normally appropriate in any place that the allegedly defamatory statement was made. In the case of a defamatory book, that would be anywhere that the book is sold. A lot of books are sold in the U.S. and the U.K., so you could sue in either place. Similarly with broadcasts.

4. Well, it's not hard to sue someone in the U.S., that's true. You just draw up a complaint and pay a filing fee. But it is hard to win, because we have concepts such as "public figure" and "actual malice" that are absent in other countries and provide strong defenses to defamation suits.

5. On your last point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. In countries like Japan it is nearly impossible to sue corporations because of the organization-orientation of the country. I think that more structured countries like France and Britain likewise tend to favor organizations over individuals, as compared to the U.S. I agree with your substantive point about individual responsibility, but in a jury trial setting it's usually a lone plaintiff against a big impersonal corporation. The dramatic setting appeals to the U.S. tendency to favor individuals (notwithstanding your entirely correct point that the individual can only prevail by rejecting responsibility for herself).

The above was much better stated than you prior post, and now I understand what you are talking about. However, I must note that some of your statements are generalizations that apply only to cases with large numbers of plaintiffs. Naturally, I am aware of forum shopping, but the manner in which you stated the concept in your first post makes it sound as if that is an option in all cases. It is not.

Do you have anything to back up your idea regarding cultural corporate bias, or is that just a theory of yours? Not that I am disagreeing with the concept, but I am curious as to whether it is just a matter of "I think" or "studies have shown -- citation."

[Ak Mike]

RickyMaveety - now you want me to do some real work! I think you probably agree with me that there is a strong individualist strain in American culture, and also that this country affords a much broader right of judicial remedy for individuals than other countries do (it's the source of many complaints about our lawyer-dominate culture - but lawyers can only do what the courts and legislatures let them do).

With respect, you are wrong in your suggestion in yesterday's post that where you can sue depends on where the injury occurred. You can sue anyone anywhere where you can get personal jurisdiction, at least in the U.S. I can sue you in California for an automobile accident that occurred in France. You can sue me in New York for breaking a contract with you in Turkey. I am confident that I could sue you in a Dutch court for slandering me in Illinois. What law applies may be an open question, but the courts in any jurisdiction are not limited to resolving disputes that arose in that jurisdiction.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

I am confident that I could sue you in a Dutch court for slandering me in Illinois. What law applies may be an open question, but the courts in any jurisdiction are not limited to resolving disputes that arose in that jurisdiction.

They are. Generally speaking, a court only has jurisdiction over citizens of its own country, or companies which are registered in that country. The reason that people can sue, say, airlines, in a foreign country is that most major airlines have a corporate presence in practically every country in the world.

That's why extradition treaties exist between countries; if I, as a British citizen, committed a crime in the United States, I couldn't be tried in a British court for that offence; the American legal system would need to apply to have me extradited to the US to stand trial there.

[Ak Mike]

Harry - criminal cases have special rules. First, a criminal case must be prosecuted by the government, which is limited to prosecuting matters that offended against it - in other words, that occurred within its jurisdiction. Second, for human rights reasons, criminal cases are normally required to be tried where the crime occurred.

These limitations do not pertain in civil matters. Right now I am handling a case in a U.S. state court arising from a commercial transaction that occurred in Germany. The limitation on civil cases is usually whether you can obtain personal jurisdiction over that person or company. If I appeared in London for a few hours of sightseeing before flying off to Paris, and your process server found me and served the papers, a British court would acquire personal jurisdiction over me, and you would be enabled to sue me for a matter that occurred anywhere in the world. U.S. rules give wide latitude to acquiring personal jurisdiction, and enable in many cases a person to sue in a U.S. court a company that has never appeared within the borders of the United States.

It is emphatically not true that a court has jurisdiction only over citizens of its country or companies registered there. "Personal jurisdiction" is a concept completely different from citizenship or registration, and much broader.