<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_2334226</id>
	<title>Investing In Lawsuits Beats the Street</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243933260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>guga31bb sends word on the next wave of investment in a slow market: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/business/03litigate.html?hp">bankrolling others' lawsuits</a>. The practice sounds on the face of it indistinguishable from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty">champerty</a>. <i>"Juris typically invests $500,000 to $3 million in a case, Mr. Desser said. He would not identify the company's backers, but said that 'on the portfolio as a whole, our returns are well in excess of 20 percent per year.' He added, 'We're certainly beating the market.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>guga31bb sends word on the next wave of investment in a slow market : bankrolling others ' lawsuits .
The practice sounds on the face of it indistinguishable from champerty .
" Juris typically invests $ 500,000 to $ 3 million in a case , Mr. Desser said .
He would not identify the company 's backers , but said that 'on the portfolio as a whole , our returns are well in excess of 20 percent per year .
' He added , 'We 're certainly beating the market .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>guga31bb sends word on the next wave of investment in a slow market: bankrolling others' lawsuits.
The practice sounds on the face of it indistinguishable from champerty.
"Juris typically invests $500,000 to $3 million in a case, Mr. Desser said.
He would not identify the company's backers, but said that 'on the portfolio as a whole, our returns are well in excess of 20 percent per year.
' He added, 'We're certainly beating the market.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28195431</id>
	<title>Should be illegal.</title>
	<author>seeker\_1us</author>
	<datestamp>1244042460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at the kind of crap that the SCO Group pulled over the last <b>six years</b>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the kind of crap that the SCO Group pulled over the last six years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the kind of crap that the SCO Group pulled over the last six years...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193267</id>
	<title>how is this news for nerds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how does this relate to "your rights online" or "news for nerds?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how does this relate to " your rights online " or " news for nerds ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how does this relate to "your rights online" or "news for nerds?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194211</id>
	<title>Re:So what's the big deal?</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1244036220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surefire win for the plaintiff does not mean that the plaintiff's complaint is just, true, or morally upstanding.  It just means that prior plaintiffs with the same situation have done well in the same venues.  I see a parallel to the American phenomenon of two drug stores on every corner - if the first one makes it, it can be studied and shown that another one will also survive in the same place - not that that's the best place to put a new store, just the lowest risk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surefire win for the plaintiff does not mean that the plaintiff 's complaint is just , true , or morally upstanding .
It just means that prior plaintiffs with the same situation have done well in the same venues .
I see a parallel to the American phenomenon of two drug stores on every corner - if the first one makes it , it can be studied and shown that another one will also survive in the same place - not that that 's the best place to put a new store , just the lowest risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surefire win for the plaintiff does not mean that the plaintiff's complaint is just, true, or morally upstanding.
It just means that prior plaintiffs with the same situation have done well in the same venues.
I see a parallel to the American phenomenon of two drug stores on every corner - if the first one makes it, it can be studied and shown that another one will also survive in the same place - not that that's the best place to put a new store, just the lowest risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28195605</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes.</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1244043180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Treating the legal system as a business opportunity is not new, but to base a business model on it?</p><p>You guys should start cutting down on lawyer fees, fast.</p></div><p>Lawyers have been treating it as a business opportunity, why shouldn't the capitalists get involved?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Treating the legal system as a business opportunity is not new , but to base a business model on it ? You guys should start cutting down on lawyer fees , fast.Lawyers have been treating it as a business opportunity , why should n't the capitalists get involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Treating the legal system as a business opportunity is not new, but to base a business model on it?You guys should start cutting down on lawyer fees, fast.Lawyers have been treating it as a business opportunity, why shouldn't the capitalists get involved?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28197631</id>
	<title>Re:Fire Sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244051520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.jgwentworth.com/" title="jgwentworth.com" rel="nofollow">JG Wentworth</a> [jgwentworth.com].  Period. (Mr. J. G. "I take your money from you and you gladly give it to me" Wentworth)</p><p>They pay you $10,000 now, because <b>"It's my money, and I want it now!"</b>.  This is of course if you have a rock solid fixed monthly payment to you, due to whatever reasons.</p><p>Then, they collect your monthly payments to the merry tune of, say, $30,000 or higher.  Not too bad, for JGW.  A steaming pile of shit for you.  But then again, you wanted it <i>all</i> now, instead of waiting.</p><p>There are a few other companies that do this very same scheme, but with lawsuits for various reasons.  Again, your case has to be pretty much air tight before they will even look at you.  And, you will loose your shirt in the "convenience" of the process.</p><p>IMHO, people that do this are on par with (or maybe worse than) people that charge 1200\% or higher interest for payday "loans".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JG Wentworth [ jgwentworth.com ] .
Period. ( Mr. J. G. " I take your money from you and you gladly give it to me " Wentworth ) They pay you $ 10,000 now , because " It 's my money , and I want it now ! " .
This is of course if you have a rock solid fixed monthly payment to you , due to whatever reasons.Then , they collect your monthly payments to the merry tune of , say , $ 30,000 or higher .
Not too bad , for JGW .
A steaming pile of shit for you .
But then again , you wanted it all now , instead of waiting.There are a few other companies that do this very same scheme , but with lawsuits for various reasons .
Again , your case has to be pretty much air tight before they will even look at you .
And , you will loose your shirt in the " convenience " of the process.IMHO , people that do this are on par with ( or maybe worse than ) people that charge 1200 \ % or higher interest for payday " loans " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JG Wentworth [jgwentworth.com].
Period. (Mr. J. G. "I take your money from you and you gladly give it to me" Wentworth)They pay you $10,000 now, because "It's my money, and I want it now!".
This is of course if you have a rock solid fixed monthly payment to you, due to whatever reasons.Then, they collect your monthly payments to the merry tune of, say, $30,000 or higher.
Not too bad, for JGW.
A steaming pile of shit for you.
But then again, you wanted it all now, instead of waiting.There are a few other companies that do this very same scheme, but with lawsuits for various reasons.
Again, your case has to be pretty much air tight before they will even look at you.
And, you will loose your shirt in the "convenience" of the process.IMHO, people that do this are on par with (or maybe worse than) people that charge 1200\% or higher interest for payday "loans".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28205803</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes.</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1244051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check this
<br>
"Factoring is the purchasing of your invoices as an asset, not a loan. Liberty Capital Funding provides immediate cash enabling you to meet necessary business expenses and costs such as business leases and payroll. Your invoices are used as collateral until funds are received from your client."

<a href="http://www.liberty-capitalfunding.com/funding\_process.html" title="liberty-ca...unding.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.liberty-capitalfunding.com/funding\_process.html</a> [liberty-ca...unding.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check this " Factoring is the purchasing of your invoices as an asset , not a loan .
Liberty Capital Funding provides immediate cash enabling you to meet necessary business expenses and costs such as business leases and payroll .
Your invoices are used as collateral until funds are received from your client .
" http : //www.liberty-capitalfunding.com/funding \ _process.html [ liberty-ca...unding.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check this

"Factoring is the purchasing of your invoices as an asset, not a loan.
Liberty Capital Funding provides immediate cash enabling you to meet necessary business expenses and costs such as business leases and payroll.
Your invoices are used as collateral until funds are received from your client.
"

http://www.liberty-capitalfunding.com/funding\_process.html [liberty-ca...unding.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193397</id>
	<title>Fmylife.com of the times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swynfen\_will\_case" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swynfen\_will\_case</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Got promised 1.3mil to win a case, the first case I've run. Had sex with the hot beneficiary. Won the case. Didn't get paid. She married someone else and sued me for misconduct. My life sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swynfen \ _will \ _case [ wikipedia.org ] Got promised 1.3mil to win a case , the first case I 've run .
Had sex with the hot beneficiary .
Won the case .
Did n't get paid .
She married someone else and sued me for misconduct .
My life sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swynfen\_will\_case [wikipedia.org]Got promised 1.3mil to win a case, the first case I've run.
Had sex with the hot beneficiary.
Won the case.
Didn't get paid.
She married someone else and sued me for misconduct.
My life sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194451</id>
	<title>no surprise here</title>
	<author>caldodge</author>
	<datestamp>1244038020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When robbery is permitted (or, at least, can be carried out with little risk) it will flourish, since it's easier to steal something than to create it.  This is why Somali pirates are so successful at present.</p><p>The enactment of "loser pays" laws would reduce this activity by increasing the cost of this sort of theft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When robbery is permitted ( or , at least , can be carried out with little risk ) it will flourish , since it 's easier to steal something than to create it .
This is why Somali pirates are so successful at present.The enactment of " loser pays " laws would reduce this activity by increasing the cost of this sort of theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When robbery is permitted (or, at least, can be carried out with little risk) it will flourish, since it's easier to steal something than to create it.
This is why Somali pirates are so successful at present.The enactment of "loser pays" laws would reduce this activity by increasing the cost of this sort of theft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193779</id>
	<title>Maybe this isn't so bad?</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1244031600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>We all bemoan how the non-moneyed are at the mercy of the wealthy in the legal system.&nbsp; Perhaps "angel investors" in a legitimate case are not such a bad idea?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all bemoan how the non-moneyed are at the mercy of the wealthy in the legal system.   Perhaps " angel investors " in a legitimate case are not such a bad idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all bemoan how the non-moneyed are at the mercy of the wealthy in the legal system.  Perhaps "angel investors" in a legitimate case are not such a bad idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194991</id>
	<title>This is not unethical.</title>
	<author>BForrester</author>
	<datestamp>1244040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  Investment is made in lawsuit that is likely to win, but can't continue for lack of funds<br>2.  Justice is done<br>3.  The little guy wins, could not have done it without investor's help<br>4.  Profit!  (Commission for the vendor)</p><p>If there is anything unethical about the situation, it's that these lawsuits are in a position where farming out the commission to 3rd party investors is the only way to see justice done and avoid being trampled by richer entities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Investment is made in lawsuit that is likely to win , but ca n't continue for lack of funds2 .
Justice is done3 .
The little guy wins , could not have done it without investor 's help4 .
Profit ! ( Commission for the vendor ) If there is anything unethical about the situation , it 's that these lawsuits are in a position where farming out the commission to 3rd party investors is the only way to see justice done and avoid being trampled by richer entities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Investment is made in lawsuit that is likely to win, but can't continue for lack of funds2.
Justice is done3.
The little guy wins, could not have done it without investor's help4.
Profit!  (Commission for the vendor)If there is anything unethical about the situation, it's that these lawsuits are in a position where farming out the commission to 3rd party investors is the only way to see justice done and avoid being trampled by richer entities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193255</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not quite sure, but I want to say it's a good thing, since it in a small way reduces the problems for people who should win a case but do not due to lack of funding...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not quite sure , but I want to say it 's a good thing , since it in a small way reduces the problems for people who should win a case but do not due to lack of funding.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not quite sure, but I want to say it's a good thing, since it in a small way reduces the problems for people who should win a case but do not due to lack of funding...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193329</id>
	<title>I'll stick to betting on horses</title>
	<author>Big Hairy Ian</author>
	<datestamp>1244025180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>people can get emotionally attached to horses unlike lawyers.  And I can make more than 20\%</htmltext>
<tokenext>people can get emotionally attached to horses unlike lawyers .
And I can make more than 20 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people can get emotionally attached to horses unlike lawyers.
And I can make more than 20\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194443</id>
	<title>Re:So what's the big deal?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1244037960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If justice requires rounding up investors, then the society of laws is already on it's deathbed. It also does a great injustice to anyone who <i>probably</i> should prevail but is not certain to by creating a legal services bubble. Just like the real estate bubble, this will likely drive up the costs of legal services. There are very good reasons such practices are generally considered unethical and in many legal systems, actually criminal.</p><p>It also has the unfortunate effect of encouraging 'sure thing' lawsuits that should NOT prevail. For example, the RIAA threaten and settle model. They are sure to get many settlements (since they demand less than the cost to even begin fighting the suits).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If justice requires rounding up investors , then the society of laws is already on it 's deathbed .
It also does a great injustice to anyone who probably should prevail but is not certain to by creating a legal services bubble .
Just like the real estate bubble , this will likely drive up the costs of legal services .
There are very good reasons such practices are generally considered unethical and in many legal systems , actually criminal.It also has the unfortunate effect of encouraging 'sure thing ' lawsuits that should NOT prevail .
For example , the RIAA threaten and settle model .
They are sure to get many settlements ( since they demand less than the cost to even begin fighting the suits ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If justice requires rounding up investors, then the society of laws is already on it's deathbed.
It also does a great injustice to anyone who probably should prevail but is not certain to by creating a legal services bubble.
Just like the real estate bubble, this will likely drive up the costs of legal services.
There are very good reasons such practices are generally considered unethical and in many legal systems, actually criminal.It also has the unfortunate effect of encouraging 'sure thing' lawsuits that should NOT prevail.
For example, the RIAA threaten and settle model.
They are sure to get many settlements (since they demand less than the cost to even begin fighting the suits).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207</id>
	<title>Ah yes.</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1244023860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Treating the legal system as a business opportunity is not new, but to base a business model on it?</p><p>You guys should start cutting down on lawyer fees, fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Treating the legal system as a business opportunity is not new , but to base a business model on it ? You guys should start cutting down on lawyer fees , fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Treating the legal system as a business opportunity is not new, but to base a business model on it?You guys should start cutting down on lawyer fees, fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193557</id>
	<title>Re:So what's the big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244028840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, I for one, welcome our new legal system arms race overlords.<br>[quits the country]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , I for one , welcome our new legal system arms race overlords .
[ quits the country ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, I for one, welcome our new legal system arms race overlords.
[quits the country]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193501</id>
	<title>The Sophomore Class</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1244027580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trial attorney's primary asset is his experience in court - his ability to win cases.</p><p>But that makes it difficult to hit a bank for a loan.</p><p> So he - like generations of skilled craftsmen and professionals before him - seeks financing outside the normal banking system.</p><p>There is the side issue of collection from the client who isn't paying his bill. Corporate litigation at the highest level tends to more rather more work and expense than the collision at Third and Main.</p><p>Gah. Does the phrase "independent contractor" ring a bell with anyone here? Or are you all still living in the Dorm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trial attorney 's primary asset is his experience in court - his ability to win cases.But that makes it difficult to hit a bank for a loan .
So he - like generations of skilled craftsmen and professionals before him - seeks financing outside the normal banking system.There is the side issue of collection from the client who is n't paying his bill .
Corporate litigation at the highest level tends to more rather more work and expense than the collision at Third and Main.Gah .
Does the phrase " independent contractor " ring a bell with anyone here ?
Or are you all still living in the Dorm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trial attorney's primary asset is his experience in court - his ability to win cases.But that makes it difficult to hit a bank for a loan.
So he - like generations of skilled craftsmen and professionals before him - seeks financing outside the normal banking system.There is the side issue of collection from the client who isn't paying his bill.
Corporate litigation at the highest level tends to more rather more work and expense than the collision at Third and Main.Gah.
Does the phrase "independent contractor" ring a bell with anyone here?
Or are you all still living in the Dorm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193777</id>
	<title>Re:Fire Sale</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244031600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Investing in cultural <a href="http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Strategy=*&amp;Form=Dict1&amp;Database=*&amp;Query=naval" title="dict.org">naval</a> [dict.org] gazing more like.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>What's wrong with watching ships in the water?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Investing in cultural naval [ dict.org ] gazing more like .
What 's wrong with watching ships in the water ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Investing in cultural naval [dict.org] gazing more like.
What's wrong with watching ships in the water?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194045</id>
	<title>This can get out of hand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244034960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to the article, they only invest in cases that are pretty much a surefire win for the plaintiff.</p></div><p>But what happens when a win is not a certainty at all?  What if the real purpose of the suit is to harass the defendant or coerce them into settling?  Would it be OK to provide 3rd-party funding for the RIAA lawsuits?  Most of their cases are too flimsy to go to trial.  But for the most part, these cases throw off enough cash to justify the investment.   Just as "junk bonds" often have high yields, "junk lawsuits" might offer a good return on investment.</p><p>And what happens when the 3rd-party funding is for a questionable case whose main goal is to impede a competitor, coincidentally for the benefit of the funding source?  Microsoft's involvement with SCO is one example.</p><p>In those cases where the defendants prevail, the "litigation investors" losses are capped at 100\% their investment as far as I can tell.  The actual plaintiffs may lose more.  In fact, they may even go bankrupt, leaving the defendant with an uncollectible judgment.   I wish there was a way for the litigation investors to share in the downside of a loss.  Using SCO vs. IBM as one example, Why shouldn't Microsoft have to pick up the tab for SCO's liability, proportional to their funding of the scheme?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , they only invest in cases that are pretty much a surefire win for the plaintiff.But what happens when a win is not a certainty at all ?
What if the real purpose of the suit is to harass the defendant or coerce them into settling ?
Would it be OK to provide 3rd-party funding for the RIAA lawsuits ?
Most of their cases are too flimsy to go to trial .
But for the most part , these cases throw off enough cash to justify the investment .
Just as " junk bonds " often have high yields , " junk lawsuits " might offer a good return on investment.And what happens when the 3rd-party funding is for a questionable case whose main goal is to impede a competitor , coincidentally for the benefit of the funding source ?
Microsoft 's involvement with SCO is one example.In those cases where the defendants prevail , the " litigation investors " losses are capped at 100 \ % their investment as far as I can tell .
The actual plaintiffs may lose more .
In fact , they may even go bankrupt , leaving the defendant with an uncollectible judgment .
I wish there was a way for the litigation investors to share in the downside of a loss .
Using SCO vs. IBM as one example , Why should n't Microsoft have to pick up the tab for SCO 's liability , proportional to their funding of the scheme ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, they only invest in cases that are pretty much a surefire win for the plaintiff.But what happens when a win is not a certainty at all?
What if the real purpose of the suit is to harass the defendant or coerce them into settling?
Would it be OK to provide 3rd-party funding for the RIAA lawsuits?
Most of their cases are too flimsy to go to trial.
But for the most part, these cases throw off enough cash to justify the investment.
Just as "junk bonds" often have high yields, "junk lawsuits" might offer a good return on investment.And what happens when the 3rd-party funding is for a questionable case whose main goal is to impede a competitor, coincidentally for the benefit of the funding source?
Microsoft's involvement with SCO is one example.In those cases where the defendants prevail, the "litigation investors" losses are capped at 100\% their investment as far as I can tell.
The actual plaintiffs may lose more.
In fact, they may even go bankrupt, leaving the defendant with an uncollectible judgment.
I wish there was a way for the litigation investors to share in the downside of a loss.
Using SCO vs. IBM as one example, Why shouldn't Microsoft have to pick up the tab for SCO's liability, proportional to their funding of the scheme?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193401</id>
	<title>Derivatives</title>
	<author>Breakthru</author>
	<datestamp>1244026080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally some sound business! We'll make derivatives stocks
based on the outcome of such lawsuits, you know, people always like to bet.
Ok so now I'm just missing a quote system.. oh,
hang on, there's bookkeeping in football, we can use that</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally some sound business !
We 'll make derivatives stocks based on the outcome of such lawsuits , you know , people always like to bet .
Ok so now I 'm just missing a quote system.. oh , hang on , there 's bookkeeping in football , we can use that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally some sound business!
We'll make derivatives stocks
based on the outcome of such lawsuits, you know, people always like to bet.
Ok so now I'm just missing a quote system.. oh,
hang on, there's bookkeeping in football, we can use that
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194263</id>
	<title>Re:The consequences</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1244036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our small company (based outside the US) was advised by our lawyer to never sell to a customer in the USA. Even if your company has no local presence beyond an accessible website, local courts will use the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-arm\_statute" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">long arm statute</a> [wikipedia.org] to claim jurisdiction. It doesn't matter that your contract specifies the legal jurisdiction. It doesn't matter that you have no local presence. Local lawyer plus local judge = right-to-do-whatever-they-damn-well-please. And you know those foreign corporations are just rolling in dough...

</p><p>It is theoretically possible to purchase legal liability insurance. However, legal liability insurance generally excludes the US as simply to risky.

</p><p>Despite the legal advice, we did sell to one customer in the USA whom we though we could trust. A couple of years later things apparently went south. Their lawyer thought "Quick, who can we screw out of some cash?" We got this registered letter in the mail...

</p><p>Lovely legal system you guys have, just lovely.

</p><p> <i>p.s. The outcome was good for us, but only because I personally know a couple of lawyers in the US, and one of them helped us out. For most foreign companies, this could have been very, very expensive. If you choose not to show up at the courthouse in Podunk City, the judge will enter a default judgement against you, which will hang around your company's neck like an albatross.</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our small company ( based outside the US ) was advised by our lawyer to never sell to a customer in the USA .
Even if your company has no local presence beyond an accessible website , local courts will use the long arm statute [ wikipedia.org ] to claim jurisdiction .
It does n't matter that your contract specifies the legal jurisdiction .
It does n't matter that you have no local presence .
Local lawyer plus local judge = right-to-do-whatever-they-damn-well-please .
And you know those foreign corporations are just rolling in dough.. . It is theoretically possible to purchase legal liability insurance .
However , legal liability insurance generally excludes the US as simply to risky .
Despite the legal advice , we did sell to one customer in the USA whom we though we could trust .
A couple of years later things apparently went south .
Their lawyer thought " Quick , who can we screw out of some cash ?
" We got this registered letter in the mail.. . Lovely legal system you guys have , just lovely .
p.s. The outcome was good for us , but only because I personally know a couple of lawyers in the US , and one of them helped us out .
For most foreign companies , this could have been very , very expensive .
If you choose not to show up at the courthouse in Podunk City , the judge will enter a default judgement against you , which will hang around your company 's neck like an albatross .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our small company (based outside the US) was advised by our lawyer to never sell to a customer in the USA.
Even if your company has no local presence beyond an accessible website, local courts will use the long arm statute [wikipedia.org] to claim jurisdiction.
It doesn't matter that your contract specifies the legal jurisdiction.
It doesn't matter that you have no local presence.
Local lawyer plus local judge = right-to-do-whatever-they-damn-well-please.
And you know those foreign corporations are just rolling in dough...

It is theoretically possible to purchase legal liability insurance.
However, legal liability insurance generally excludes the US as simply to risky.
Despite the legal advice, we did sell to one customer in the USA whom we though we could trust.
A couple of years later things apparently went south.
Their lawyer thought "Quick, who can we screw out of some cash?
" We got this registered letter in the mail...

Lovely legal system you guys have, just lovely.
p.s. The outcome was good for us, but only because I personally know a couple of lawyers in the US, and one of them helped us out.
For most foreign companies, this could have been very, very expensive.
If you choose not to show up at the courthouse in Podunk City, the judge will enter a default judgement against you, which will hang around your company's neck like an albatross. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28195373</id>
	<title>It's still a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244042220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As other posters have pointed out, the real problem is that the laws are so complicated no one can comply with them. I would suggest a few simple changes to (eventually) fix the problem. Firstly, have all laws expire after a fixed length of time, unless renewed by the legislature.  Secondly, require all legislation to be read aloud in the legislature, in full, with a quorum of members present, before it can become law.  Thirdly, enact a lifetime ban on practicing law in a jurisdiction where a person has been involved in enacting a law.  This would put an end to the domination of most legislatures by lawyers who, when they leave the legislature, make a very profitable career out of interpreting the gobbledygook they wrote into the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As other posters have pointed out , the real problem is that the laws are so complicated no one can comply with them .
I would suggest a few simple changes to ( eventually ) fix the problem .
Firstly , have all laws expire after a fixed length of time , unless renewed by the legislature .
Secondly , require all legislation to be read aloud in the legislature , in full , with a quorum of members present , before it can become law .
Thirdly , enact a lifetime ban on practicing law in a jurisdiction where a person has been involved in enacting a law .
This would put an end to the domination of most legislatures by lawyers who , when they leave the legislature , make a very profitable career out of interpreting the gobbledygook they wrote into the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As other posters have pointed out, the real problem is that the laws are so complicated no one can comply with them.
I would suggest a few simple changes to (eventually) fix the problem.
Firstly, have all laws expire after a fixed length of time, unless renewed by the legislature.
Secondly, require all legislation to be read aloud in the legislature, in full, with a quorum of members present, before it can become law.
Thirdly, enact a lifetime ban on practicing law in a jurisdiction where a person has been involved in enacting a law.
This would put an end to the domination of most legislatures by lawyers who, when they leave the legislature, make a very profitable career out of interpreting the gobbledygook they wrote into the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229</id>
	<title>So what's the big deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244024100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article, they only invest in cases that are pretty much a surefire win for the plaintiff.  This makes sense, because if they're in it to make money, then cases that are likely to be questionable are a bad investment.</p><p>Seems to me that they're actually doing a public service, by allowing little guys who can't afford to take on big corporations who have clearly done them wrong to proceed with a potentially expensive lawsuit.  No longer can the party with deeper pockets simply fight a war of attrition and hope to run the other guy dry.  If the plaintiff ends up winning he gets more than he would have gotten had he simply given up, and if somebody else makes a buck off it as well, then so much the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , they only invest in cases that are pretty much a surefire win for the plaintiff .
This makes sense , because if they 're in it to make money , then cases that are likely to be questionable are a bad investment.Seems to me that they 're actually doing a public service , by allowing little guys who ca n't afford to take on big corporations who have clearly done them wrong to proceed with a potentially expensive lawsuit .
No longer can the party with deeper pockets simply fight a war of attrition and hope to run the other guy dry .
If the plaintiff ends up winning he gets more than he would have gotten had he simply given up , and if somebody else makes a buck off it as well , then so much the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, they only invest in cases that are pretty much a surefire win for the plaintiff.
This makes sense, because if they're in it to make money, then cases that are likely to be questionable are a bad investment.Seems to me that they're actually doing a public service, by allowing little guys who can't afford to take on big corporations who have clearly done them wrong to proceed with a potentially expensive lawsuit.
No longer can the party with deeper pockets simply fight a war of attrition and hope to run the other guy dry.
If the plaintiff ends up winning he gets more than he would have gotten had he simply given up, and if somebody else makes a buck off it as well, then so much the better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194353</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes.</title>
	<author>thrillseeker</author>
	<datestamp>1244037360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once upon a time, our elected official were people who had built their own businesses - people who knew how hard it sometimes was to make payroll - and people who knwe how hard it occasionally was to be unable to make payroll.  We had laws that encouraged growth, which requires someone, somewhere to voluntarily invest something, whether it be his own time or someone else's discretionary nickel.  When something worked it was praised, encouraged, duplicated and expanded, and when something didn't, it was simply discarded.  Today, our electees are basically all lawyers - and we have an economy in meltdown, archaic business efforts are kept around, and even subsidized because it buys votes, and we have a financial system where one can do better with destruction rather than construction.  One wonders at correlation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time , our elected official were people who had built their own businesses - people who knew how hard it sometimes was to make payroll - and people who knwe how hard it occasionally was to be unable to make payroll .
We had laws that encouraged growth , which requires someone , somewhere to voluntarily invest something , whether it be his own time or someone else 's discretionary nickel .
When something worked it was praised , encouraged , duplicated and expanded , and when something did n't , it was simply discarded .
Today , our electees are basically all lawyers - and we have an economy in meltdown , archaic business efforts are kept around , and even subsidized because it buys votes , and we have a financial system where one can do better with destruction rather than construction .
One wonders at correlation .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time, our elected official were people who had built their own businesses - people who knew how hard it sometimes was to make payroll - and people who knwe how hard it occasionally was to be unable to make payroll.
We had laws that encouraged growth, which requires someone, somewhere to voluntarily invest something, whether it be his own time or someone else's discretionary nickel.
When something worked it was praised, encouraged, duplicated and expanded, and when something didn't, it was simply discarded.
Today, our electees are basically all lawyers - and we have an economy in meltdown, archaic business efforts are kept around, and even subsidized because it buys votes, and we have a financial system where one can do better with destruction rather than construction.
One wonders at correlation ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193187</id>
	<title>Investing in goatse beats the lawsuits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244023500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at least will require you to beat them off with a <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">stick</a> [goatse.fr].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least will require you to beat them off with a stick [ goatse.fr ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least will require you to beat them off with a stick [goatse.fr].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28198531</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1244054880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It must be a nice world you live in - because it sure as hell isn't ours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It must be a nice world you live in - because it sure as hell is n't ours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must be a nice world you live in - because it sure as hell isn't ours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193913</id>
	<title>The consequences</title>
	<author>Technician</author>
	<datestamp>1244033520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the US turns to heavy litigation, the targets flee.  Start-ups consider greener pastures.</p><p>Want proof?  The country that led the industrial revolution is now a service industry nation.</p><p>As consumer protection lawsuits pervail, industry leaves.  Small planes, diving boards, vaccines, and other products are not made in the US simply because of litigation and the threat of litigation.</p><p>The risks to the nation are huge including massive trade defecits, collapse of the economy due to devalued hard currancy, and shortages of supplies in time of need as we depend on overseas manufacturing.  The latest risk is the swine flu.  Nobody in the US makes the vaccine.  In a pandemic, demand in the home country may cut supplies off entirely as the limited capacity is used elsewhere.  This is the result of runaway litigation.</p><p>I worked in a shop at one time where the owner refused to provide service to laywers.  They were the second most likely bunch to not pay, or demand second and third services unpaid.  Only on other group exceeded laywers in not paying for services.</p><p>Welcome to a litigious society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the US turns to heavy litigation , the targets flee .
Start-ups consider greener pastures.Want proof ?
The country that led the industrial revolution is now a service industry nation.As consumer protection lawsuits pervail , industry leaves .
Small planes , diving boards , vaccines , and other products are not made in the US simply because of litigation and the threat of litigation.The risks to the nation are huge including massive trade defecits , collapse of the economy due to devalued hard currancy , and shortages of supplies in time of need as we depend on overseas manufacturing .
The latest risk is the swine flu .
Nobody in the US makes the vaccine .
In a pandemic , demand in the home country may cut supplies off entirely as the limited capacity is used elsewhere .
This is the result of runaway litigation.I worked in a shop at one time where the owner refused to provide service to laywers .
They were the second most likely bunch to not pay , or demand second and third services unpaid .
Only on other group exceeded laywers in not paying for services.Welcome to a litigious society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the US turns to heavy litigation, the targets flee.
Start-ups consider greener pastures.Want proof?
The country that led the industrial revolution is now a service industry nation.As consumer protection lawsuits pervail, industry leaves.
Small planes, diving boards, vaccines, and other products are not made in the US simply because of litigation and the threat of litigation.The risks to the nation are huge including massive trade defecits, collapse of the economy due to devalued hard currancy, and shortages of supplies in time of need as we depend on overseas manufacturing.
The latest risk is the swine flu.
Nobody in the US makes the vaccine.
In a pandemic, demand in the home country may cut supplies off entirely as the limited capacity is used elsewhere.
This is the result of runaway litigation.I worked in a shop at one time where the owner refused to provide service to laywers.
They were the second most likely bunch to not pay, or demand second and third services unpaid.
Only on other group exceeded laywers in not paying for services.Welcome to a litigious society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217</id>
	<title>Fire Sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Investing in cultural naval gazing more like. When the process of legal shikanery yields better returns than investing in real world products then it is apparent that the our culture has run aground . . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Investing in cultural naval gazing more like .
When the process of legal shikanery yields better returns than investing in real world products then it is apparent that the our culture has run aground .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Investing in cultural naval gazing more like.
When the process of legal shikanery yields better returns than investing in real world products then it is apparent that the our culture has run aground .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193211</id>
	<title>returns are well in excess of 20 percent per year</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1244023860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well if that doesnt ring any alarm bells!</p><p>
&nbsp; maybe we should introduce Bernake to these people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well if that doesnt ring any alarm bells !
  maybe we should introduce Bernake to these people : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well if that doesnt ring any alarm bells!
  maybe we should introduce Bernake to these people :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28197165</id>
	<title>So ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1244049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... this differs from the way the ACLU backs certain cases how exactly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... this differs from the way the ACLU backs certain cases how exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... this differs from the way the ACLU backs certain cases how exactly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28195949</id>
	<title>Re:Ah yes.</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1244044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Treating the legal system as a business opportunity is not new, but to base a business model on it?</p></div></blockquote><p>Also not new.  See, Law Firms</p><p>In a non-pedantic way, this business model has existed for a while, but I've usually heard about it on a smaller scale.</p><blockquote><div><p>You guys should start cutting down on lawyer fees, fast.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's actually based on the non-lawyer fee side of the equation.  That is, taking money that would normally go to the plantiff, not the plantiff's lawyers.</p><p>And while it is a lot of money, keep in mind that it is being paid by people breaking the law directly to people who seek out and punish them.  It's an idea carried over from Athenian society, and it seems to properly incentivize people to engage in a 5-year battle against a giant corporation to enforce laws to which the government cannot devote sufficent resources.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Treating the legal system as a business opportunity is not new , but to base a business model on it ? Also not new .
See , Law FirmsIn a non-pedantic way , this business model has existed for a while , but I 've usually heard about it on a smaller scale.You guys should start cutting down on lawyer fees , fast.It 's actually based on the non-lawyer fee side of the equation .
That is , taking money that would normally go to the plantiff , not the plantiff 's lawyers.And while it is a lot of money , keep in mind that it is being paid by people breaking the law directly to people who seek out and punish them .
It 's an idea carried over from Athenian society , and it seems to properly incentivize people to engage in a 5-year battle against a giant corporation to enforce laws to which the government can not devote sufficent resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Treating the legal system as a business opportunity is not new, but to base a business model on it?Also not new.
See, Law FirmsIn a non-pedantic way, this business model has existed for a while, but I've usually heard about it on a smaller scale.You guys should start cutting down on lawyer fees, fast.It's actually based on the non-lawyer fee side of the equation.
That is, taking money that would normally go to the plantiff, not the plantiff's lawyers.And while it is a lot of money, keep in mind that it is being paid by people breaking the law directly to people who seek out and punish them.
It's an idea carried over from Athenian society, and it seems to properly incentivize people to engage in a 5-year battle against a giant corporation to enforce laws to which the government cannot devote sufficent resources.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193529</id>
	<title>NEWSFLASH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244028060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> we're certainly beating the market</i></p><p>Lemonade stand beats the street. Fuck, when looking at the past 2 years, anyone who made $1 profit "BEAT THE STREET".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we 're certainly beating the marketLemonade stand beats the street .
Fuck , when looking at the past 2 years , anyone who made $ 1 profit " BEAT THE STREET " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> we're certainly beating the marketLemonade stand beats the street.
Fuck, when looking at the past 2 years, anyone who made $1 profit "BEAT THE STREET".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28198733</id>
	<title>Laws can be simplified</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1244055780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree that with the claim that laws can't be simplified.   There are really only three types of crimes:  Bloody, monetary, and control.   We could replace the confusing crap of various specific rules with 'guideliness' and rule that all 'non-guideline' based stuff immediately gets kicked up to appeal to verify.

Example of a simple law.  Any claim of taking money/item of value without the legal right to it is entitled to triple reimbursement plus imprisonment time.  Followed by an auto-inflation adjusting chart for amount stolen vs. Time in prison, with a set of factors to increase, such as "fully accidental theft = no time and just double reimbrusement",  "Negligenct but not accidental theft = 1/2 time", "Taken from charity = time *2) "Taken as revenge = 1/3 time", "Taken in anger without revenge = double time".  Things like that.  This in effect creates one set of rules for both non-violent break and entree and say embezzlement.    It would make things fairer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree that with the claim that laws ca n't be simplified .
There are really only three types of crimes : Bloody , monetary , and control .
We could replace the confusing crap of various specific rules with 'guideliness ' and rule that all 'non-guideline ' based stuff immediately gets kicked up to appeal to verify .
Example of a simple law .
Any claim of taking money/item of value without the legal right to it is entitled to triple reimbursement plus imprisonment time .
Followed by an auto-inflation adjusting chart for amount stolen vs. Time in prison , with a set of factors to increase , such as " fully accidental theft = no time and just double reimbrusement " , " Negligenct but not accidental theft = 1/2 time " , " Taken from charity = time * 2 ) " Taken as revenge = 1/3 time " , " Taken in anger without revenge = double time " .
Things like that .
This in effect creates one set of rules for both non-violent break and entree and say embezzlement .
It would make things fairer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree that with the claim that laws can't be simplified.
There are really only three types of crimes:  Bloody, monetary, and control.
We could replace the confusing crap of various specific rules with 'guideliness' and rule that all 'non-guideline' based stuff immediately gets kicked up to appeal to verify.
Example of a simple law.
Any claim of taking money/item of value without the legal right to it is entitled to triple reimbursement plus imprisonment time.
Followed by an auto-inflation adjusting chart for amount stolen vs. Time in prison, with a set of factors to increase, such as "fully accidental theft = no time and just double reimbrusement",  "Negligenct but not accidental theft = 1/2 time", "Taken from charity = time *2) "Taken as revenge = 1/3 time", "Taken in anger without revenge = double time".
Things like that.
This in effect creates one set of rules for both non-violent break and entree and say embezzlement.
It would make things fairer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193949</id>
	<title>American Dreams</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1244033940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old American Dream:  Rugged self reliance, hard work and innovation lead to success and propserity.</p><p>New American Dream:  Have the government take care of you while you attempt to win a lawsuit or the lottery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old American Dream : Rugged self reliance , hard work and innovation lead to success and propserity.New American Dream : Have the government take care of you while you attempt to win a lawsuit or the lottery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old American Dream:  Rugged self reliance, hard work and innovation lead to success and propserity.New American Dream:  Have the government take care of you while you attempt to win a lawsuit or the lottery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194015</id>
	<title>Re:Fire Sale</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1244034600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem here will start where every situation takes a turn for the worst - when everybody and their grandmother start borrowing money to get into the "surefire profit" business and get into debts, scams popping left and right to provide investment opportunities and toxic assets (like our good friend Lionel Hutz) getting into the business to collect some of the windfall. The market will collapse, leaving most small investors holding an empty bags while the usual rich people run off with the leftover money. Don't believe me? Just look at the internet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com bubble and the recent housing market collapse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem here will start where every situation takes a turn for the worst - when everybody and their grandmother start borrowing money to get into the " surefire profit " business and get into debts , scams popping left and right to provide investment opportunities and toxic assets ( like our good friend Lionel Hutz ) getting into the business to collect some of the windfall .
The market will collapse , leaving most small investors holding an empty bags while the usual rich people run off with the leftover money .
Do n't believe me ?
Just look at the internet .com bubble and the recent housing market collapse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem here will start where every situation takes a turn for the worst - when everybody and their grandmother start borrowing money to get into the "surefire profit" business and get into debts, scams popping left and right to provide investment opportunities and toxic assets (like our good friend Lionel Hutz) getting into the business to collect some of the windfall.
The market will collapse, leaving most small investors holding an empty bags while the usual rich people run off with the leftover money.
Don't believe me?
Just look at the internet .com bubble and the recent housing market collapse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194381</id>
	<title>Re:Fire Sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>try "chicanery" [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chicanery] instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>try " chicanery " [ http : //en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chicanery ] instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>try "chicanery" [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chicanery] instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28195949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28205803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28197631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28195605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28198531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2334226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28197165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28198733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28195605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28198531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28195949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28205803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28195431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28197631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28194263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2334226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2334226.28193329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
