Do I have it right that in England, if you sue someone, and you lose, you have to pay their legal fees? I bring this up from the Michael Jackson thread here. The allegations against MJ were never proven in a court of law, and his denials, along with the denials of those who said they knew him were very strong...maybe he did it, maybe he didn't...but I often wonder when people like MJ are accused of something, that their wealth and station in life has to be part of the reason they're being sued. I wonder if a system where if you lost your case and you had to pay the legal fees of the accused, really does reduce the amount of cases of these types. In MJ's case, do you think he would have been brought up on charges if the accuser stood the chance of losing, and paying his legal bills to defend himself?
WASHINGTON POST who finally unveiled terrorists for the monsters they really are: fiendish forgers and warez doods. Roslyn Mazer unveiled a damning dossier that conclusively showed "trademark pirates in Pakistan producing T-shirts with counterfeit Nike logos and glorifying bin Laden" and that "eight of 10 countries identified by a trade group as having the highest business software piracy rates in the world - Pakistan, China, Indonesia, Ukraine, Russia, Lebanon, Qatar and Bahrain - have links to al-Qaeda". Circumstantial? Perhaps? Necessary to declare war on all IP theft? Of course. Although we still don't get it - who'd pay for pirated stuff anyway? And does bin Laden get to sue for using his image without permission Attorney Companies