How To Take a Big Vendor To Small Claims and Win 171
snydeq writes "Gripe Line's Christina Tynan-Wood offers good news for those harboring grievances about faulty software or unfair licensing practices: it is in fact possible to take a big vendor to small claims court and win. But, as one woman's fight against Adobe demonstrates, detailed evidence and a deep understanding of the laws in question are essential to obtaining justice against big vendor lawyers. 'Evidence is the key factor,' explains one legal expert. 'Often the evidence people present does not show what they think it does. And they fail to make themselves aware of the rules of evidence so they can introduce any evidence they do have in court. These companies will have attorneys and those attorneys will use the rules of civil procedure to take advantage of your lack of knowledge.' Moreover, they will spare little expense no matter the magnitude of claims brought against them. 'The lawyer for Adobe tried an "end-user is stupid" argument,' explains the woman who took on Adobe over a software license she never had the privilege of agreeing to. 'But he gave that up when he learned I wasn't a lame-brain home computer user. I have a software engineering background and worked for Sun Microsystems and Fidelity Investments tech group.'"
Re:You have better odds in Small Claims Court (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but coupled with your other points, sounds like the defendant at the least should actually be dismissing their attorney, if not suing them for malpractice, if not talking to the police about having you both charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice (if your jurisdiction allows such for civil procedures).
I'm all for 'sticking it to the man', but the fact you're in appeals, and boasting on Slashdot that the opposing legal counsel is "helping you out"... I'm not sure is such a good thing.
Re:My understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this is newsworthy is sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this is newsworthy and the law is such an enigmatic set of rules and ritual demonstrate just how flawed our democratic system is. How can you call anything remotely resembling justice if the playing field is so uneven that it's newsworthy that someone was able to take a big corporation to small claims court and win? Police often say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, despite very frequently either flat-out lying about what the law is or misunderstanding it themselves--remember, they aren't lawyers, and lawyers often get it wrong too because it's a convoluted jumbled mess of precedent and sometimes vague statutes. The law is a giant, incomprehensible tangle of mumbo-jumbo, with legal precedents being treated like magic spells (uttered in Latin, no less). And with this structure, who wins? Why, the ones with the resources to hire experts...!
In the words of a certain insanely underrated and clever kid's cartoon show from the 90's (Rocko's Modern Life): "You can't fight City Hall! You can't fight corporate America, they are big and we are small, you can't fight City Hall..."
Re:The fact that this is newsworthy is sad. (Score:3, Insightful)
In my case, I have overwhelming evidence. It's not that it favors ME, but rather proves that EVERYTHING I've said is true and consequently everything the defendant has said is a lie. As long the person filing the action has actual evidence, and there's good reason for what they're asking, they should be able to win.
But if you're like most people and show up with nothing (this actually happened in many cases I witnessed while waiting to be called), then you can't expect to win against someone who shows up prepared.
That's another reason I'm doing ok, because most people can't explain their actions/reasons/motives etc for what they're asking for. They can't come up with proof of bills, expenses or damage in some cases. So when things happen and there is no "evidence," then it's very difficult to give them the reason. In some cases I heard, I would personally say both parties were at fault because neither denied the accusations. That's why I don't envy the judge.
Re:What product and OS? (Score:2, Insightful)
In particular if you are a "software engineer" which to me means programmer.
The skills of system administration and programming are distinct, though related in some ways. Just because you can do one does not mean you can do the other. As an example I am a systems administrator and it would seem a successful one (my boss likes my work and I've had my job for many a year). However, I can't program. I do know the basics of programming, I understand the concepts fairly well actually and know the syntax of several languages, however I do not do a good job of actually putting a program together. It is not a skill I have. That I can diagnose and fix software problems doesn't mean that I can write the software.
Well I've found the opposite is very often true. I know many computer programmers that suck at the systems administration. They can't troubleshoot even simple hardware problems, they get viruses on their system, they don't know how to set their OS to do what they want, etc. They can be downright disastrous as computer users, despite being able to develop software. They understand how to plot out the flow of a program and turn that in to a language the computer can understand. They do not understand the big picture of how all the hardware and software interacts on a live system.
So I can perfectly well believe that a software engineer with plenty of experience could get thwarted by something that, from a systems administration point of view, is fairly simple. Unfortunately many programmers are problems because they seem to think that since they can program, that means they are good with computers in every way. After all, they write the software, how hard can the rest be?
Bad article (Score:5, Insightful)
What tactics did she use? What the fuck is an "end user is stupid argument"? What piece of the law did she use to win? What did she argue made the license null and void?
This article doesn't give me any hope about winning lawsuits against big tech companies at all. It's actually quite discouraging. There's no real information in the article which leads me to believe that perhaps this was actually a fluke and this person won due to something stupid. (i.e. the lawyer didn't show up to court because he mismarked his calendar.)
Having taken people to small claims before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Taking them in and getting a judgement is the EASY part.
Actually getting your damages/awards from them is where it becomes tough.
Re:You have better odds in Small Claims Court (Score:5, Insightful)
The technicalities of the law in my state really says I have no chance what-so-ever of winning IF the attorney would have done more than the MINIMUM. Which is really what is needed in THIS case.
You really had better hope that the defendant doesn't read Slashdot. This is one reason why lawyers exist---to tell their clients to shut the fuck up about pending court cases.
Title should be "I took ...", not "How to ..." (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two points I take exception to:
(1) The title of this post, which should read "I Took a Big Vendor To Small Claims and Won". The product isn't named. The OS isn't named. The instructions from tech support aren't given. All it really says is "Oh yay it isn't easy and you have to be precise." You have to bring ample evidence to court and make yourself aware of how it will be interpreted? Oh my.
(2) The penultimate sentence: "Needless to say, I have not bought any other Adobe products. Even opening a PDF makes me nervous!" Now I'm not exactly the grand proselytizer of Adobe products - but I am aware that a large number of people are using their products professionally day in day out. This blanket statement implying that "Adobe == shit" just casts, to me, a rather dark shadow on the not-being-a-lame-brain bit further up.
Re:You have better odds in Small Claims Court (Score:4, Insightful)
I had an argument (a.k.a. flamewar) with a guy recently here on slashdot about the necessity of lawyers.
He seemed to simply reject the idea that the law was complicated enough to require a specialized caste of individuals. He kept arguing that a layperson should be able to accomplish legal work without resorting to a lawyer.
I appreciate your account so much, because it provides a good amount of evidence to back up my claim: the law is that complicated, and while a layperson could do it, they have to spend a lot of time and effort on the matter.
Cases are not as easy as walking in and talking to the judge.
We pay lawyers so well to do this stuff, because they have less ramp-up time than we do.
On another note, yeah, a lot of lawyers are pretty piss poor at representing their clients in court. I remember one judge berating a lawyer in a restraining order case for attempting to make an argument directly against the New York Times prior restraint precedent. I suppose you get what you pay for when you hire a budget lawyer?
Re:The fact that this is newsworthy is sad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but the problem is that, by nature, it's still much harder for you, a lone individual, to chase this down, then it is a monolithic corporation.
Additionally, it's much worse in regular court.
Re:Completely Untrue (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to agree with the above sentiment. The story just doesn't add up and the lack of detail and rambling content makes me very leery that what went on even really happened at all. This article is way to complicated and simply flies in the face of normal business. I have also dealt with large companies and small. I have even been in small claims court. The way this person describes the actions and how things unfolded simply flies in the face of normal small claims court proceedings and simply doesn't ring true at all, as described.
Not only how this person describes their court experience, but the lack of even reasonable detail makes me wonder. It is like sitting at a table with one of your friends that you know 'exaggerates' at times, to say the least. Now their latest story once again simply doesn't ring true. If I was to guess. This sounds more like someone that experienced a lot of frustration with support and had to work through the companies legal dept. presenting some of the evidence to their representatives, in order to get satisfaction. Then from there they simply embellished the rest to impress their friends. Now the story get's picked up for one reason or another. Now that person is stuck with continuing and expanding this fantasy story, or face embarrassment if front of those same friends. This simply isn't described like any small claims court I have ever been in.
Re:Bad article (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Whilst selling you the film, they switch the film for a licence to view it.
Re:Completely Untrue (Score:3, Insightful)
This story is bullshit! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me explain how:
Small claims court - ALMOST UNIVERSALLY WILL NO LAWYERS BE ALLOWED IN ONE IN THE USA.
"These companies will have attorneys and those attorneys will use the rules of civil procedure to take advantage of your lack of knowledge"
So much for that person being a legal expert. No wonder they're not named, as they'd be found and likely disciplined by the real bar.
Re:You have better odds in Small Claims Court (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly reality rules in your favor, the law IS too complicated for the layperson to use it.
In the ideal, however, the law would be simple and the tool of anyone who needed its protection.
While I agree that it is fundamentally an ideal; I think it is not possible for a legal system to be sufficiently comprehensive without devolving into the need for specialized individuals. Even the Jewish concept of Noatic Law for the gentiles is complicated enough to draw out the distinction between justified and unjustified homicide.
Re:You have better odds in Small Claims Court (Score:3, Insightful)
This was a consequence in my case too - a huge amount of stress and real, perhaps permanent, damage to my health. I concluded that in some cases the real benefit of having a lawyer on your side is not their legal expertise but them being a buffer and reducing the stress you suffer.