No judge I’ve ever met gave a damn how much a party spent on legal resources. With rare exceptions, they care a great deal about achieving justice, and often bend over backwards to help indigent parties avoid prejudicing themselves. Keep in mind that there are no indigent parties in this debate; both major IP rights holders and the frontier AI companies are well capitalized.
(I worked in a federal district court for a while.)
Which of these parties doesn’t have lawyers? (I’m talking about bigcorps stealing from bigcorps here.)
In a case where both parties have lawyers, having more and more expensive lawyers is not necessarily predictive of a case’s outcome. There are diminishing returns.
What having more resources tends to do is force the poorer party to settle quicker. But that’s not necessarily a loss. Judges still have to approve settlements in the interest of justice.
I don’t know. I’ve seen high quality work product from solo practitioners. Also, even the most expensive lawyer cannot make you win when the law isn’t on your side.
False. A substantial percentage of ridiculous precedents resulted from the Government prevailing in a case—and DAs are not the best paid lawyers by far.
(I worked in a federal district court for a while.)