Carl Denk alltel.net> writes: > 1: Here in the USA, anyone can sue anyone, and many times it the one that has the deepest pockets that prevails, even by bluffing. :( Expanding on this (and not only in the USA): Entities with larger funds and/or political power nearly always win in court. Therefore the goal is to avoid going (or being taken) to court. The reasons for being taken to court are two: 'They' can take one to court because they believe they can gain something based on prevailing laws or 'they' can take one to court based on something written in additional legiferation between the parties (i.e. NDA or signed contract or other lien). So it follows that the weaker party entering some kind of business relationship with a stronger party can benefit by limiting the number and the extent of contracts with the stronger party as much as possible. I know that this is impossible but given the current situation where entering a longer litigation would bankrupt many a consultant, it looks like a worthy goal to pursue. This would mean, deliver products and services and get paid, and forget about grandiose contracts, 'partnerships' and patents. Or, more exactly, the number of such contracts and other money-sinks in case of litigation should be as small as possible, and if any, of standard type (and hopefully legally enforceable by precedent, without 5-year lawsuits). just an opinion, Peter P. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist