Re: The new licensing model

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by pap on 12/17/99 4:32 PM ---

>It may indeed be true. but I did not intend to imply exonerating all 
>behavior. There is the legal concept of liability for one's acts, kind of 
>like  running your bulldozer over your neighbor's flower bed even with the 
>claim that it was not intentional. That is for the Bench to decide, which 
>is their forte'. But I don't expect the Bench should have the burden of 
>re-designing the rules of the road for the industry so as to cause the 
>least collateral damage. I feel that it should be a consequential 
>consideration for others who's  focus is closer to the task.

Nor I. But the application of liability principles are only of limited 
utility in cases such as these because it is not really possible to make 
any of the damaged parties whole, and it is almost ludicrous to think of 
monetary damages as providing a deterrent to similar future behavior. The 
"make 'em pay through the nose" logic only goes so far, and it's not far 
enough. Lawyers are enamored of this notion, by the way, because they 
know that when a large sum of money changes hands, they are bound to end 
up with a substantial chunk of it.

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net