Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Store [video]

Re:Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Stor... by thegasman on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @01:59PM (#11864164)

Many of the issues raised by your comment are the result of civil procedural rules. These rules are not intentionally designed to postpone rulings on the merits, and instead were built on historical understandings of how a dispute should be fairly addressed: 1) communicate problem to adverse party 2) adverse party responds 3) fact-finding 4) written arguments aimed at resolution 5) trial by judge/peers (if necessary).

I don't believe that moving #4 (or even #5) earlier in the process maximizes the possibility of a logically/legally sound conclusion, which IMO, is the purpose of the justice system. Then again, your comment has identified speed as a priority, not a thorough examination of the merits.

If the procedural rules don't offend you, then we might just be talking about expensive lawyers. Not all lawyers are expensive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Stor... by clavalle on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @02:25PM (#11864378)

Not speed but cost of which time is definitely a factor.

Getting to the merits is the point but the point is often lost in the game of the process. True statement?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Being sued, in East Texas, for using the Google Play Stor... by thegasman on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @02:34PM (#11864449)

>Getting to the merits is the point but the point is often lost in the game of the process. True statement?

True, but you're assuming that the process and the merits are totally distinct (in fact, my own comment reads that way ;]).

But, as another commenter noted, processes themselves can influence merits (e.g. missing a filing deadline, or enforcing discovery requests).

[ Parent | on HN ]