Rowling wins copyright infringement case

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Trenien

Ah, but Rushdie isn't a millionaire (or at least he wasn't at the time).

He wasn't suing anyone, either. The cases are not completely parallel. I just meant that his work and life came under an unusually high level of scrutiny due to circumstances rather outside his control (having a fatwa issued against him). As far as I know, Rowling had no plans to become a millionaire, either. While I imagine becoming insanely rich is a lot more fun than having religious authorities issue death threats against one, neither leaves much room for a private life, and insanely small details suddenly look huge under the glare of the public spotlight.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by nekokami

He wasn't suing anyone, either.

Actually, Salman Rushdie has recently sued someone for libel, and won his case. However, he declined to seek damages, contenting himself with an apology.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7581842.stm

[nekokami]

Well, there's a true gentleman. I wonder if he did seek to recover court costs, however? It doesn't seem reasonable to me that someone who has been found to have been libeled should have to bear the cost of taking the libeler to court. Sir Rushdie can probably afford it, but that's not the point.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Well, there's a true gentleman. I wonder if he did seek to recover court costs, however? It doesn't seem reasonable to me that someone who has been found to have been libeled should have to bear the cost of taking the libeler to court. Sir Rushdie can probably afford it, but that's not the point.

In the British legal system, the loser generally has to pay both side's legal costs. That's one reason that we don't have the issue of frivolous court cases so common in the US.

Note, by the way, that he is correctly referred to as "Sir Salman". If he had a wife (he doesn't at present, although he's been through four of them so far) she would be "Lady Rushdie".

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Note, by the way, that he is correctly referred to as "Sir Salman". If he had a wife (he doesn't at present, although he's been through four of them so far) she would be "Lady Rushdie".

Oops. Sorry about that. Should have caught that after reading the BBC article.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Oops. Sorry about that. Should have caught that after reading the BBC article.

That's OK - the way that British "titles" work is a mystery to most people in this country too. The only reason I know about stuff like this is through being a Jane Austen fan .

[axel77]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the British legal system, the loser generally has to pay both side's legal costs. That's one reason that we don't have the issue of frivolous court cases so common in the US.

Is this is a slip, or is this on purpose the wrong way around than I'd believe is the case. In europe we don't have the issue of frivolous court cases so common than in the US, because if you lose you have to pay the costs of the one you filed a case against also. Also this system makes it far less problematic what in the US is famishing the opponent, that is to prolong the case until he is out of money. In europe this won't work, since if you are pretty sure you gonna win, you can go forever in the case, since the your opponnent will have to pay all your costs, and the longer he prolongs the case if he is losing, the more expensive it will be for him.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by axel77

Is this is a slip, or is this on purpose the wrong way around than I'd believe is the case. In europe we don't have the issue of frivolous court cases so common than in the US, because if you lose you have to pay the costs of the one you filed a case against also. Also this system makes it far less problematic what in the US is famishing the opponent, that is to prolong the case until he is out of money. In europe this won't work, since if you are pretty sure you gonna win, you can go forever in the case, since the your opponnent will have to pay all your costs, and the longer he prolongs the case if he is losing, the more expensive it will be for him.

What HarryT described is the same as what you have described, I think. Perhaps the English sentence construction is confusing?

[Ak Mike]

axel77 and Harry - Although it is not universally present in the United States, many court cases here do have a "loser pays" system for attorney's fees. Most contract cases, many lawsuits under federal laws, and normal suits in Alaska provide that all, or most, of the winner's fees must be paid by the loser. This has not diminished the volume of litigation in the least. I think there are other factors at work, for example the loose standards for product liability.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

axel77 and Harry - Although it is not universally present in the United States, many court cases here do have a "loser pays" system for attorney's fees. Most contract cases, many lawsuits under federal laws, and normal suits in Alaska provide that all, or most, of the winner's fees must be paid by the loser. This has not diminished the volume of litigation in the least. I think there are other factors at work, for example the loose standards for product liability.

I think that the most important factor is that the money you can get from a law suit in Europe is very much less then the amounts in the US. If I remember correctly for example in Sweden we do not have the concept of punative damage.

[HarryT]

We have punative damages in the UK, but the key point is that here it's the judge who sets the level of the damages, not the jury, and hence awards tend to be much more moderate.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We have punative damages in the UK, but the key point is that here it's the judge who sets the level of the damages, not the jury, and hence awards tend to be much more moderate.

Often the Jury set awards get overturned by the appeal process in the US.

Dale

[HarryT]

Thanks, Dale.

Is it only in certain types of trial that the jury sets the punishment, or does it happen in all trials in the US? It seems a little anomalous to someone from the UK, because in our system the only role of the jury is to decide whether the person on trial is guilty or innocent (or, in Scotland, the third verdict of "not proven"); if the person is found guilty, it's then always the judge who decides what the punishment will be.

[nekokami]

I don't know about always, but when I got sued, the jury found for the plaintiff, but was able to choose to award $0. This left me stuck with some, but not all of the plaintiff's court costs. (Not anything like what she and her lawyer had spent, however. Though the lawyer was working for a percentage of the take, in this case, so I don't think she had to pay him more than a token retainer.)

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks, Dale.

Is it only in certain types of trial that the jury sets the punishment, or does it happen in all trials in the US? It seems a little anomalous to someone from the UK, because in our system the only role of the jury is to decide whether the person on trial is guilty or innocent (or, in Scotland, the third verdict of "not proven"); if the person is found guilty, it's then always the judge who decides what the punishment will be.

There is not a uniform method adopted on all states but in the states I have lived in the jury even determined the sentence on criminal cases within a set of guidelines given by the judge. Civil matters usually involve cash and again the judge provides guidelines but the jury doesn't have to follow them. Generally anytime the Jury seems out of line there is an appeal. The papers always report the big Jury awards but seldom report what was really paid.

Dale