top | item 46786708 (no title) xuki | 1 month ago You don't want to spend time and money to fight with a $350B company. discuss order hn newest direwolf20|1 month ago If that's your logic they can make you do anything they like. They can ask you for $100m "because I said so" and you'll comply to avoid spending $200m on lawyers. kube-system|1 month ago Usually it doesn't take $200m to prove that "because I said so" isn't a valid claim of damages.But otherwise, you've got the math right. Settling is typically advised when the cost to litigate is expected to be more than the cost to settle. habinero|1 month ago Yeah. That'd exactly how it works. It's why having strong anti-SLAPP laws is critical.
direwolf20|1 month ago If that's your logic they can make you do anything they like. They can ask you for $100m "because I said so" and you'll comply to avoid spending $200m on lawyers. kube-system|1 month ago Usually it doesn't take $200m to prove that "because I said so" isn't a valid claim of damages.But otherwise, you've got the math right. Settling is typically advised when the cost to litigate is expected to be more than the cost to settle. habinero|1 month ago Yeah. That'd exactly how it works. It's why having strong anti-SLAPP laws is critical.
kube-system|1 month ago Usually it doesn't take $200m to prove that "because I said so" isn't a valid claim of damages.But otherwise, you've got the math right. Settling is typically advised when the cost to litigate is expected to be more than the cost to settle.
habinero|1 month ago Yeah. That'd exactly how it works. It's why having strong anti-SLAPP laws is critical.
direwolf20|1 month ago
kube-system|1 month ago
But otherwise, you've got the math right. Settling is typically advised when the cost to litigate is expected to be more than the cost to settle.
habinero|1 month ago