[11898] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Green Card contract analysis
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (DAN L. BURK)
Sat Apr 23 07:22:27 1994
Date: 22 Apr 94 21:16:00 EST
From: "DAN L. BURK" <DBURK@gmuvax.gmu.edu>
To: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
Larry Berg writes:
> There seems to be a great deal of emphasis being placed on the expense of
> defending oneself in litigation. The expense is considerably reduced when
> the defendant is a lawyer.
Probably not -- defending oneself chews up time and resources that the small
firm could be using to generate profits. Remember that the solo or small firm
lawyer is also a small businessman, and nothing screws up your cash flow like
trying to handle a suit yourself -- C&S would certainly rather use the time to
prosecute green card applications.
Also, don't forget that *they're* the ones who threatened a suit in the first
place.
> There is very little recognition being given to the expense of initiating
> (or intervening in) litigation as a Plaintiff.
Actually, the other list that I subscribe to, which is devoted to discussion
of the law as it applies to the Internet, is now carrying a discussion by
several cyberlawyers as to who among them would be willing to take this case
for a reduced fee, or possibly for nothing. They all 1) recognize the PR that
they would get from taking the case and 2) are as annoyed as anybody else over
the abuse of the net by C&S.
The moral to the story is that, much as in the early days of civil rights law,
attorneys are going to be willing to take interesting Internet cases because
it will generate business for them later.
There are also mechanisms, such as the class action suit, that are designed to
overcome the cost barriers that you mention. It might be interesting if all
the site owners of computers carrying USENET groups sued C&S as a class.
Dan L. Burk
George Mason University
dburk@gmuvax.gmu.edu
