Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Lloyds of London to Offer Open Source Insurance 135

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
darkworm writes "Lloyds of London, the world's oldest insurance house, is to offer indemnification for IP litigation worldwide according to the Channel Register: 'Lloyd's of London is close to offering independent insurance protection worldwide against potential IP litigation involving Linux and open source software. The financial services giant has agreed to take on the risk associated with open source, and is finalizing arrangements to work through Open Source Risk Management (OSRM) who will become Lloyd's sole U.S. representative.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lloyds of London to Offer Open Source Insurance More

Lloyds of London to Offer Open Source Insurance

Comments Filter:

  • A little late (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:21PM (#13317700)
    Sure, now they offer insurance as it starts to become clear that SCO is going bankrupt. [slashdot.org]
    • ...the Titanic [bankrate.com] - so from an insurer's point of view, it makes perfect sense to ascertain they bet on something that's really unsinkable this time.
    • Well, it is an insurance company - they're betting they're going to make money doing this, so with SCO on its way out they stand a better chance of making said money. Not to say SCO has any merit, but they can still cost a company money regardless of merit.

      This is actually a very good sign from some of the best actuaries in the business that Open Source is a sound bet. But they'll sell you insurance anyway.

    • Re:A little late (Score:3, Interesting)

      by morleron ( 574428 )
      Actually, I suspect that the fact that SCO has been absolutely unable to show any infringing code is part of the driver behind this. Insurance companies don't make money by paying out claims, so they're not usually in a hurry to bet on anything short of a certainty. The fact that both Lloyds' and OSRM are beginning to develop this market tells me that not only do they feel that there isn't much risk of them having to pay out large amounts in claims, but it also demonstrates that the Linux market is maturi

  • Lloyds is not... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:21PM (#13317701)
    ...an insurance company, it provides a market place where several companies (or syndicates) can sell insurance.

  • Lloyds history (Score:3, Informative)

    by augustz ( 18082 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:27PM (#13317732)
    It was interesting. When I saw that lloyds was offering this I was surprised, as I thought they'd almost been bankrupted in the past.

    Their main website and about us timeline make no mention of any major financial issues (were covered by Time / BW etc at the time).

    A little digging of course did turn up an interesting read.

    http://www.truthaboutlloyds.com/fraud.html [truthaboutlloyds.com]

    Still, nice to see insurance coming out for this type of thing. Hopefully some more players get involved in the future.

    • Re:Lloyds history (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rstultz ( 146201 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:39PM (#13317785) Homepage
      Lloyds has a three-hundred year history or ups and downs, it's the insurance industry (quite literally, the insurance industry was created out of Lloyd's, then a coffee house dedicated to maritime shipping).

      While I don't doubt that Lloyds has problems, has had problems, will have problems, they are known as a gold standard. It's not a single entity, it's a market, much like the stock market. There are large syndicates, made up of names (investors) who are the ones who actually are taking the risk. Lloyds is the gold standard because they have shown time and time again that they will not allow themselves to go bust. In whole or part. If a syndicate can not pay it's liabilities, then Lloyds governing body pays, with all of the other names sharing the cost. It's expensive, especially considering that they are covering policies they aren't legally reponsible for. But it's worked for 300 years, I still have faith in them.

      Also, the financial fraud/troubles your link points out are from 80s and 90s. Lloyds was either the largest or second largest reinsurer (the ones who actually had to pay) on the World Trade Center, and they paid that claim (billions), so I would assume they're not in that much trouble.

      Ryan Stultz
      • If/when When the claims come in, Lloyds members pay up what they owe. even if it does bankrupt them personally. That is why Lloyds is still in businesss - you do a deal with them, they keep their side of the bargain. (American Insurance companies are Limited Liability - if the claims exceed the value of the company, they dont get paid in full.)

    • I was also surprised to see your post, considering that I pay them quarterly for insurance for one of my special vehicles.

  • But when can we get tiger-attack insurance? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:28PM (#13317733) Homepage
    For whatever reason, this is all I can think of right now.
    Lisa: By your logic, this rock keeps tigers away.

    Homer: Oh? How does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn't work.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
        [pause]
    Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
    • Yee old giraffe scarecrow metaphor. An oldie but goodie.

    • Re:But when can we get tiger-attack insurance? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @05:12PM (#13317933) Journal

      I think the article sums up this area quite nicely:

      Arguably, one of the worst-case scenarios is the so-called "colorable case" - where there is no substance to an IP claim, but a company is forced to waste millions of dollars to defend the claim or settles early for a large sum to make the case go away. The average US patent action is estimated to cost $2m, according to the American Intellectual Property Lawyers' Association.

      I'm glad the author included this note. It indicates quite clearly why a lot of companies see it as being so important to be cautious of lawsuits. It's not the possibility of losing that matters, it's the cost of fighting. If the cost of fighting is more than a company can afford, it just make sense to settle, and then the overly litigous company wins. Even enlightened CEO's often want indemnification--not because they think a company like SCO has a hope of winning a lawsuit, but because they're concerned about how much it might cost if they're even targeted.

      Personally I think there need to be some changes to the system so that those who abuse it in this way are penalised much more, and also more quickly. The fact that SCO was both able to be so noticed in the first place, and can even continue dragging its corpse around today to threaten people with its stench without the likelihood of serious charges being brought against it, its executives or its legal team, suggests that not quite enough measures yet exist.

    • I think it was vampires actually.

  • Woohoo! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Norfair ( 845108 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:28PM (#13317735) Journal
    Free Open-Source insurance! Er, wait, that was free as in beer, right?
    • ``Free Open-Source insurance! Er, wait, that was free as in beer, right?''

      It'd be even better if it were free as in software. You get the cheapest package you can find, and then you're free to share and improve as you like!
    • Or so I was thinking. I mean, I can modify this insurance and pass it on to anyone else who needs it free of restrictions, right?

  • Smart Move? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:29PM (#13317742) Homepage Journal
    Considering things really havent been truly tested, one bad judgement could cost billions..

    Though, sounds like easy money to me.

    "Steal" code from an insider friend and use it in your application. Get sued, the friend wins and is paid from the insurance package and you split it with him.

    • Re:Smart Move? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:39PM (#13317791)
      Considering things really havent been truly tested, one bad judgement could cost billions..

      Actually, this is a really positive sign. Lloyds of London know all about risk. They've watched the SCO circus go around and have concluded that

      - SCO don't have a leg to stand on
      - However, they've made some people think there's a risk
      - Sell insurance
      - Profit!

      This is not quite as much a case of free money as the insurance policies you can buy against abduction by aliens, but it's pretty close...

      • You seem to be missing the obligatory ?????
        • You seem to be missing the obligatory ?????


          Presumably, this is because selling insurance against unlikely occurances is a real and working business model (compared to, say collecting underpants).

          I guess.

      • This is not quite as much a case of free money as the insurance policies you can buy against abduction by aliens

        Of course I'll take out such a policy. I don't want some stranger from outside the USA kidnapping anyone in my family and taking them to Canada or Mexico or somewhere and then having to pay the ransom out of my own pocket.

      • Actually, this is a really positive sign. Lloyds of London know all about risk.


        I don't know about "all", they still get it wrong sometimes [erisk.com].


        Xix.

    • Re:Smart Move? (Score:3, Informative)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 )
      That's called "insurance fraud." It's usually highly illegal. It's also not unusual at all for individuals and groups to try their luck at getting away with it. Believe me, I'm sure they've taken a good look at what they're getting into.
  • This probably spells the end for that organization that PJ of Groklaw fame used to work for, OSRM that offered a similar product. The people purchasing such insurance will be the Big Names, and they will naturally gravitate to Lloyds, as the are an established insurance carrier.
    • Please read the article next time.

      K, thx.

    • Re:The end of OSRM? (Score:4, Informative)

      by X43B ( 577258 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:43PM (#13317806) Journal
      " This probably spells the end for that organization that PJ of Groklaw fame used to work for, OSRM that offered a similar product."

      I've seen you post insightful comments in the past so I don't think this is a troll, but doesn't the article summary state that OSRM will be the sole insurance agent for Lloyd's in the US? I'm sure if people are worried about buying only from the Big Names, OSRM will be OSRM: Backed by Lloyd's of Lodon!
      • Actually you are right, I am guilty of NRTFA. But thinking about it now, it might not be far off. Consider that now that Lloyds is jumping on the boat, so might others with more insurance industry "oomph" than ORSM. In my opinion, ORSM has a bit of that "dirty hippie Open Source" feel to it in the minds of traditional management thought, and make no mistake, traditional management thought will be the driving force behind if Big Money Corporate Enterprise buys into indemnification at all.

    • Re:The end of OSRM? (Score:5, Informative)

      by richg74 ( 650636 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:51PM (#13317838) Homepage
      From the article:

      OSRM will assess both the risk of the software in use and the individual company, before passing on the risk to the appropriate insurance company on the Lloyds market. OSRM expects to announce the first customers this Fall, and will initially charge organizations $60 per server.

      As the article summary indicates, OSRM is going to be the US agent for the insurance. Some arrangement like this was more or less inevitable if OSRM's insurance concept was going to work. OSRM itself almost certainly doesn't have the resources (read, deep pockets) to underwrite the coverage.

  • Now if they would only bundle in Alien Abduction insurance with their Linux scam I could sleep soundly at night.

  • LoL.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Lloyd's of London insures odd things from porn star's throats to Mick Jagger's lips. I believe Elton John has a teddy bear insured by them and same thing goes for Jamie Lee Curtis' legs. Definitely interesting stuff... LoL indeed.
  • But if you modify the source of a claim and compile it yourself likely to get arrested

  • Not just against SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:50PM (#13317832) Homepage Journal
    I know there are going to be lots of SCO-related posts here, but SCO, of course, isn't the only threat here.

    Think of all the patents on multimedia. Are you sure your copy of MPlayer doesn't contain any patented algorithms?

    How many people do you think have contributed to all the software on your machine? Are you sure none of them have accidentally or purposefully checked in code that someone else owns the copyright to?

    Even if your system is completely clean, don't you think there would be corporations out there that would claim otherwise? Are you sure you can convince the court you're innocent when faced with that corporation's ingenious lawyers?
    • You mean you're thinking of buying this for yourself?

      The chance of even a corporate Linux user being sued over patent violations is essentially zero. The chance of a individual user facing any risk is absolute zero. This whole thing is FUD to scare users into giving money to OSRM and Bruce Perens for absolutely no reason.

      Look at this way -- how much insurance are you carrying now in case an evil corporation hauls you into court over some invented patent infringement in your car, your refrigerator or your me

      • ``The chance of even a corporate Linux user being sued over patent violations is essentially zero. The chance of a individual user facing any risk is absolute zero. This whole thing is FUD to scare users into giving money to OSRM and Bruce Perens for absolutely no reason.''

        I don't agree with you there. I am confident that I am small enough to slip under the radar, but I could see some cases popping up in the future. Regardless of whether this will actually happen or not, and regardless of who will win these
    • Aren't they insuring servers? Linux usually runs (from what I know) database applications and Apache. The LAMP stack doesn't have much to do with media, and they usually don't do a lot of media encoding.
    • I'm pretty sure they will be cautious in the way they word this.

      They wouldn't want to say insure you against something like DeCSS (or so they would claim)...they are betting that the insurance they are selling will never be needed or they wouldn't offer it...that's why the whole idea of life insurance has seemed kind of odd/ironic to me...I mean I see the need for it, but essentially you are betting that you're going to die tomorrow and the life insurance company is betting that you're going to live...

      I'm s

  • Doesn't this suck? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by visualight ( 468005 ) on Sunday August 14, 2005 @04:51PM (#13317837) Homepage
    If a company has insurance wouln't that just make it more likely for them to get sued?

    "There is a risk, but it's a material risk," Egger said of Linux and open source. "We are trying to make sure we are not exposing corporates to risk that makes using Linux uneconomic."

    Or would the insurance company put up a good fight in court and maybe make suing companies that use Linux uneconomical?

    • Re:Doesn't this suck? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or would the insurance company put up a good fight in court and maybe make suing companies that use Linux uneconomical?

      That is what Lloyds is offering to do -- for a fee. And they're betting that, on avareage, people who are worried about being sued will pay them more than they'll loose from paying settlements and/or fighting court battles.

      In other words, Lloyds has confidence that defending Open Source will Make Them Money.

      As a Libertarian who grew up in a small business, and a Linux geek, I think
    • It is most defiantly against the interests of an insurance firm to pay out on claims , and they will do all within their powers to stop it , or delay it long enough to cover the costs of the claim via trading and general interest rates acquired through the policy .
      Insurance is gambling , but a rather accepted and certainly in most cases a sensible form of gambling .
      Perhaps its the most successful form of gambling in the world , that or the stock market .

      You get protection in the off chance that something un
      • You get protection in the off chance that something unfortunate happens , and they get to rake in billions upon billions . They would not be offering this insurance if they thought that they would have to pay out on a lot of claims .

        No, they would not be offering insurance if the total amount they expect to pay in claims is moer than they'd take in in premiums. I haven't seen a single number concerning cost. Who says that Lloyd's isn't charging $1,000,000/year/seat for Linux use? Lloyds is known for
        • The true beauty(subjectively so ) of what they do is making people think the risk is higher than it really is. I did rather simply and you are quite correct , I was being a touch cynical .
        • Lloyds may be known for insuring high-risk items, but that doesn't mean that everything it insures, or even a majority, it high risk. 100,000 Americans have Lloyds policies against being abducted by aliens.
        • You asked, "who says that Lloyd's isn't charging $1,000,000/year/seat for Linux use?"

          The story pointed to says, "... will initially charge organizations $60 per server."
    • If a company has insurance wouln't that just make it more likely for them to get sued?

      I think this is quite a complex subject. It seems to me that the legal system has become just an other tool that companies use to 'get ahead' (in lue of a better description).

      What we see a lot today are lawsuits that have seemingly little merit, which are just used to either damage a competitor or leach of the sucess of a large corp.

      A large ('flush') company can sue a small/new competitor pretty much crushing it with the s
    • If you actually do something wrong, you're likely not to be covered, for the same reason you aren't allowed to intentionally destroy your stuff for the insurance money. This means that the insurance agency wants to fight out any lawsuit, such that they either win it (and can generally recover costs from the plantiff, leaving only the hassle and the delay on the money, both of which they're set up well to deal with) or they accumulate evidence they can use if they want to refuse to pay your claim. When OSRM
  • "We are trying to make sure we are not exposing corporates to risk that makes using Linux uneconomic."

    I can't really parse that sentence very well, but it sounds like he's saying using Linux is uneconomical. Now, here's some news for nerds!

    Free system that allows you to be productive while others are busy updating their virus definitions and removing spyware is uneconomical!
    • Free system that allows you to be productive while others are busy updating their virus definitions and removing spyware is uneconomical!

      Free system that has many, many unknown authors and copyright holders that takes the US Supreme Court to determine copyright validity is uneconomical. Although my sentence, like yours, still isn't correct English, is more realistic than yours.
    • You're right, uneconomical isn't very clear. Linux obviously is economical. In fact, Lloyds wouldn't be selling insurance for it if it weren't.

      But there are plenty of things that are economical, yet don't happen due to risks that can't be budgeted. How do you budget for terrorist attacks, for instance?

      It's perfectly economical to erect a windmill in your backyard and generate your own power. But if the windmill fails, you have to very quickly purchase a new one, or go without power. So most people will

  • Time for some cloud insurance.

    Cue the Family Guy quote:

    Peter:
    Look at them up there just plotting... picking their moment.
    Cloud 1:
    So Bill, we attack tomorrow!
    Cloud 2:
    Yes, tomorrow.
    Cloud 1:
    I mean it this time.
    Cloud 2:
    I do too.

  • hope they keep it going around (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I hope Lloyds finds a way to promote (read 'pay') the FOSS community members whose efforts create this market niche. I.E. - it would behoove them to promote developers who concienciously avoid IP landmines. Anything that can help FOSS sidestep greedy IP clowns does the world a lot of good.
    • It would be a nice gesture, but I don't imagine Lloyds are in the business of being "nice".

      It's not like you see them paying vehicle manufacturers or house builders for creating the markets for car and home insurance is it?

  • These guys are always looking for ways to make money... how much risk would be involved in this endeavor ? That would be the first question they would ask, I would guess... Would Lloyd's involve themselves in a high-risk investment? If anything, this move shows how much faith they have in the GPL+all oss licences .... It's a good thing in my opinion... they could care less about how it benefits society, as long as they're making money from it.
  • Lloyds is basically saying that Linux is dangerous to use. If they said it was safe, who would buy their insurance? So, what's the truth? Well, whatever it is there's no point in asking Lloyds.

    TWW

    • Your car is dangerous to use, which is why you have insurance. Does that mean you don't use it? This is the purpose of insurance: mitigating known risks. Few things are truly risk free; insurance makes the risks manageable and less catastrophic.

    • Lloyds is basically saying that Linux is dangerous to use. If they said it was safe, who would buy their insurance? So, what's the truth? Well, whatever it is there's no point in asking Lloyds.

      The truth of insurance is that it is a business intended to generate profit. Nobody offers you coverage unless they think they're going to sucker you out of some dough. It goes without saying the profit margins can be higher if you target a phobia, and there are all kinds of irrational fears surrounding things

    • On the contrary, Lloyds consider Linux to be safe enough to use that they are going to be able to make a profit out of it.

      No insuarance company is going to insure extremely risky things and make a loss is it?
  • I saved a whole bunch on my open source insurrance by switching to Geico
  • At $60 a server, say there are 50 million Apache servers out there (some LAMP some FreeBSD-AMP etc) and there is only going to be more over time (growth of the internet etc). If 2% buy the licence from Lloyds (or from someone else) then that is $60 million per year. That money can defend up to 30 small patent infringement court cases (under $2 million) or 2 to 3 SCO size cases per year, every year.

    That is far more protection than, say, LAMP will ever need for legal fees, at least in the long run. It will be
    • I'm afraid that isn't what a Giffen Good [wikipedia.org] is. You're correct in that it has a similar price/demand curve (price goes up, demand goes up -- and the reverse) but Giffen goods are meant to be inferior quality goods, e.g. bread in lieu of meat or fruit. The canonical example is that the rising price of the basic staple, bread, forces families to abandon buying fruits and meats, since they are more expensive foods. However, they must now buy more bread to supplement their diet. Price has gone up, but so does
    • Apologies for the double post -- I realized I left this out. You're referring to a Veblen Good [wikipedia.org] with the "CEO wanting to claim they bought the most expensive solution..."


      cheers
      -b
    • I cannot see how an IP infringement claim agains a USER could succeed. As someone else pointed out - if your Ford infringes a Mercedes patent, YOU don't get sued, FORD does.

      Before that happens, Mercedes have to tell Ford that there is an infringement, and Ford has to stop doing it in cars produced after that time In the case of product already sold, Ford could get sued for losses if Mercedes can show that people actually bought Ford cars instead of Mercedes as a result of the patent infringement. Other t

  • Whoever said there was no money to be made in Open Source?

  • This insurance gig seems to be working out well for them, but their coffee has really gone downhill in the last few centuries.

  • It's called a License. Oh...wait, say what Mr. McBride...no UNIX code in Linux? In that case, "I don't need no stinking license...or insurance!"
  • offer llitigation protection for Llinux in Llondon?
  • In open source, last thing we want is an Isurance intruder

  • Insurance for Windows (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What Lloyd needs to offer is insurance for Windows. Since the maker does not offer any warranties of any kind, there is an ample market to fill in this gap. Damages caused due to crashes, poorly written Windows code prone to virus/trojam/spyware attacks, the whole nine. But they wan't because you can bet your shirt that this is a losing proposition.
    • You might want to read the small print very carefully. Someone I know is suing an insurance compay which refused to paaay becase "You neglected to tell us that your computers had software on them!" ($6,000,000 claim)

      Insurance companies are slimy bastards at the best of times, I suggest that e-mail retailers of 10" poles might be a good investment. (I am sure your spam will confirm this).

  • Could be good or bad... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14, 2005 @08:21PM (#13318692)
    This is really about those companies who want to use open source software in their products (because it's free) but are scared someone might sue them, a risk which isn't really quantifiable. These guys can be pretty greedy and dumb.

    My company, for example, won't touch anything with GPL or even LGPL, even though at least LGPL is supposedly targetted (among others) towards companies wanting to use FOSS stuff in commercial products. The reason they're so paranoid is that a) their legal department's default position on anything they don't understand is to say no and b) they're afraid of one of their competitors, wearinng a rubber Richard Stallman mask, might sue them. (by this I don't mean that Mr Stallman himself would be involved, just some front organization)

    Now the 'good' is that these firms might get this service and suddenly find some balls when it comes to adopting FOSS technologies, so wider adoption for FOSS in the commercial world.

    The 'bad' is that they might take this further than the community intended or is comfortable with. Commercial development houses like free software in principal, it is software they don't have to pay to have developed themselves. Given blanket protection, they might start pushing the limits of the licenses, getting as much as they can. If the little guy was scared to sue Sun or whoever, immagine how scared they'll be to sue Lloyds, who let me tell you are one old, mean firm, no strangers to a courtroom. Right now the onus of complience with FOSS licences seems to effectively lie with the software houses, for whatever reason. What if this insurance made it so that the onus for proving someone has violated your licence became the FOSS developer's problem? Could make these licenses de-facto unenforcable...
  • We can argue about whether the insurance is needed or not, but the fact that Lloyds is offering it means that they see a demand in the marketplace. A firm like Lloyds goes where the money is so they must see an awful lot of companies using Linux in ways that are worth insuring.

    Another sign that Linux has hit the big time.
  • This is the same bank [wikipedia.org] that has a history of selling unusual [trivia-library.com] insurance policies to anyone with the money...

    Someone probably got freaked out at a major company and asked them how much it would cost to insure them against litigation...this is par for course in the insurance industry...it's just making news because it's OSS we're talking bout now.

    File this in the same place as a "Happiness Policy" insuring against "Worry Lines" on a model's face (from previous link)...
    • LLoyds of London HAS NOTHING to do with LLoyds Bank Plc so you are totally wroing to call them a bank.

      OTOH, Lloyds of London have a reputation of actually being able to insure those things that conventional insurance companies would not touch with a 3000 mile barge pole naturally, subject to an appropriate premium.
      For example, In 1976 I wanted to take my Triumph Bonieville to Tehran to attend a wedding. No insurance company would touch me for cover in places like Romania & Bulgaria (both communist) and
      • Since there isn't a single word for Lloyds of London, "bank" was the closest I could come to...it's not really a company...and it doesnt really fit in with other insurers because, as you mention, they will insure things other insurers will not...it's really a society, but it's not even that, it's more like a market...kind of like the stock market, but instead of stocks they are dealing in insurance policies...but as I said, it's not even that...

        As for someone insuring you in a communist country, I'm sure th
  • People, this is a game made by lawyers and insurance companies for lawyers and insurance companies. Don't feed them... even if the situation arises in which case the insurance should kick in, do you really think the insurer is going to be that easy about paying up? No, they won't be. You'll have to get more lawyers, and even more work is created in their little cesspool.

    If you think something like this is worth paying for, sit down and do a thorough analysis of cost and benefit, including a worst case scena
  • I find myself wondering:
    • Predatory patent sharks will tell their victims: ``pay up, don't fight: we will accept a sum that Lloyds will pay'', it is best for them if they can get their money quickly and without having to get their parasitical lawyers out of bed.
      If this happens to any extent Lloyds will pull out of the market.
    • Lloyds has plenty of friends with a lot of influence, if they see it to their benefit they will get the law changed - this might mean no patents in Europe at least.

    I can't make my m

  • But the whole concept of IP seems like legalizing assault and battery to create a market for bodyguards.
  • Lloyds has often insured against events where the risk is negligable (to Lloyds), but the item or event to be insured is large in the public eye. The point is to make a splash in the media and promote the perception that no matter what you want to insure, Lloyds can insure it, and has done so since the beginning.

    Some Examples from various websites:

    A grain of rice with a portrait of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh engraved on it was insured at Lloyd's for $20,000.

    Cutty Sark Whisky offered a one-million-

Slashdot Top Deals

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Close