undefined | Better HN

0 pointsajross3y ago0 comments

I told you: The recipient pays as part of their civic duty. If you want protection under the law for your own grievances, you need to be prepared to assist the court in the adjudication of the grievances of others.

And the practical reason is that poor people have the right to petition courts for redress of grievances too. You're upset because Zuckerberg happens to be rich, so this seems unfair. But what if the startup had to sue someone and needed testimony from someone else to prove their case? You think they should have to pay just to get facts before the court?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

bombcar3y ago· 1 in thread

At some point, yes, otherwise it can and will be abused, just like patent lawsuits already are.

There are cases of this already happening in the case of poor people, otherwise vexatious litigants wouldn't exist.

I wonder if the judge even knew that one of the list of companies was "small company mctinypants" or just assumed all were massive and huge.

ajrossOP3y ago

Once more: it's just a subpoena. OP is looking at a few thousand dollars of legal fees and maybe a trip to wherever the court is. If you're operating a profit-seeking company in a legal regime that provides the protection that ours does, you simply have to be able to bear those costs. If your VC's or angels won't pay it, they aren't serious investors.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse