It might be the type of cases you work on, but whoever has the most money wins. That is not fair.
That's also not true at all. If you are going to slug it out until you can't slug no more, then it helps to be able to pay your attorneys. But it is certainly not true that the big money players always win, not by a long shot.
I will tell you, even if it makes you laugh because I do realize it may sound silly from a in-the-field professional to hear this, but what would be fair is if I could defend an infringment suit without knowing the law and just walk into court and present my case. That takes the money out the equation. Boy, wouldnt that be something.
I don't completely disagree with this. But a lot of the complexity exists because things are just complicated, and it's not really workable to build a set of simple rules that will cover every possible scenario out there. So instead, we use flexible rules so we can cover everything, at least to a certain perspective.
Besides, anyone can go and act as their own lawyer if they want. Anyone can learn the law, it just takes a lot of time and patience. And a lot of reading. For a lot of people, it's not worth the effort, it's better to hire an expert. I can do plumbing, it's not that difficult, but I hire a plumber because they can do a better job faster than I can, and I have someone to turn to if something goes wrong.
Should plumbing be made so simple that anyone can do it easily without a plumber? How about auto repair? Accounting? Medicine? Sometimes its not physically possible to make something easy for everyone, like medicine or auto repair. Other times, it's just not practical -- and I would argue that the law, and maybe accounting, fall in this area.
Let's take a simple case -- traffic laws. Traffic laws are generally pretty simple. If you are going faster than the posted speed limit, you are speeding period. But what if you are going slower then the posted speed limit, but the weather, or other conditions, still make it unsafe to drive. Should the police be able to stop you for travelling at a legal, but unsafe, speed? Society says yes, so in addition to the clear, unambiguous speed limit, we have a more "grey" basic speed law, and more "grey" rules as to how to apply it, and how to defend against it. We create a "Grey" rule to make the law flexible, although it increases the complexity.
We could have a trademark law that says nobody can use any trademark without permission from the trademark holder. This would be simple -- you either have permission or not. But then, how would you be able to resell something you purchased? So, we add in flexibility, like first sale, and that adds complexity.
I guess we could go the other way and say that first sale trumps all of a trademark holder's rights -- but then nobody would bother with trademark anyway, and this whole area of law would go away. A simple rule, but maybe it doesn't result in the result we want.
Simple rules are inflexible -- that's the problem with a simple system.
Also I do speak of the court in very broad terms. Criminal court, oddly enough, even though I can walk into court and present my own case I stil wouldn't win. I would gget slammed with the dream team pounding me.
Why? And what "dream team." If you were charged with a crime, you would go up against the District Attorney or his or her assistants. No "dream team" there, just a few attorneys that work for the state.
The burden of proof is much higher in criminal cases than in civil cases, which works to the defendant's advantage.
Like I said, is the court system perfect? No. But I don't think it's anywhere near as messed up as you seem to think it is.
