Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Illinois to 'Pay Up'
After the state of Illinois lost its bid to ban violent games, they were slapped with the legal fees incurred by the ESA, Video Software Dealers Association, and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. Now, the Judge has come back to collect the tab: "Turns out Judge Kennelly doesn't play chicken. As the Chicago Tribune has recently reported, Illinois has been given an ultimatum: come up with a way to pay back $510,250 by December 18th or we will figure out a way for you ... 'They have answered the plaintiffs' entreaties with what amounts to shoulder-shrugging and finger-pointing,' Kennelly wrote in an opinion. 'Specifically, they have made no real suggestion about what the plaintiffs need to do to collect what they are entitled to, largely leaving that up to one's imagination.'"
What a beautiful coup for a loser-pays system! When it comes to matters of frivolity these video game suits are in the top five, and imagine all the money ambulance chasing lawyers wouldn't make under this kind of legal climate. How perfect that a state is the original losing plaintiff! I hope that this judge has drawn an effective line in the sand for these whiny bastards. IANAL; does this constitute a precident?
FairTax baby!
As an Illinois resident, I'm sad to see the state have to pay such a fine when we, along with most other states, are having budget problems (some caused by the mismanagement, some caused by other factors, but that's not the point).
However, as a gamer and advocate of freedom of expression, I'm glad to see a win for our side. Hopefully this will discourage other states from trying the same thing.
50% of the royalties from Duke Nukem Forever?
Suck it flatlanders. /wisconsinite
The judge then clasped his hands together, made an imaginary pistol with his index fingers, pointed it at Illinois, and shouted "Boom! Headshot!!" before shoulder-rolling out of the courtroom.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
1)It would do nothing to change the current situation where, generally, whoever has the most money wins. In fact, in a lot of cases it would add insult to injury. eg, the RIAA sues you for downloading you never did, wins in court anyway due to extended litigation and a far larger lawyer pool, and then gets to hit you with thouands (or hundreds of thousands) MORE in legal fees above the verdict. For the very rich, it could actually become an incentive to launch MORE frivolous/questionable lawsuits. Or at least remove a disincentive. If they were thinking about launching a suit with questionable ground, the idea of being able to recoup all their fees removes a reason not to do it. and 2)it would unfairly punish people in truly contentous situations. The law ALWAYS has grey areas. There are ALWAYS cases where the law is NOT clear and both parties in a suit could legitimately claim to be in the right, depending solely on interpretation of the wording of the law. The only way to make clear those muddy issues is to have a trial and to have a judge or three determine exactly what the scope of the law is. So it would, in effect, punish the public for Congress's failure to write clearly-worded laws. While I know it's a tempting thing to advocate to get rid of "frivolous" suits, there are just too many exceptions. Unless you can come up with a way to remove the power of money in the legal system, and then filter truly "frivolous" suits out from legitimate ones, all this would do is tilt the system even further against the underdogs and the disadvantaged.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Whatever happened to sovereign immunity? Costs are typically not awarded against the United States under laws waiving sovereign immunity, and probably shouldn't be against the states either...
1. Call 911.
2. Seize cop car that arrives.
3. Sell cop car.
4. Repeat.
5. Profit.
Illinois Teachers' Retirement System goes from underfunded to unfunded .
Hum, as I understand it, the "loser pays" thing nearly always apply to the prosecuting party, not the defendant. At least, that's how it works in most European countries. If you sue someone and lose, you have to pay the defendant's legal fees, when it makes sense. The judge has a lot of discretion about when to apply or not this rule. There are also caps, so that an individual isn't going to pay a corporation's team of 26 lawyers. I know where I live, the caps are twice your own legal fees (roughly, lots of exceptions and such). So if you sue a corporation and lose, and you have to pay legal fees, you're only going to pay a maximum of twice your own fees.
It's not perfect, and it can be abused, yes. But there are some fairly good safeguards so that ridiculous situations like the ones you described don't happen.
Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
The Bar association would of course claim this would dampen the ability of the little guy to sue, since the big corps could fight it with their army of lawyers, out secure in the knowledge that the little guy will pay dearly for messing with them once they prevail. Scary scary scary. And perhaps even a little bit correct, but another facet of "loser pays" is that it's usually up to the discretion of the judge for "particularly meritless" cases, that the decision itself can be appealed, and so on. Right now, the Judges can order court costs paid, which are usually a rather piddling percentage of actual legal fees.
Fact is, lawyers are the larval form of politicians, so there's virtually nothing short of an incredibly shocking and polarizing event that might give reform of the legal system a snowball's chance in hell of surviving legislation.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
There are enough hungry lawyers out there that if the case is really that good, they will be happy to defend you for the promise of payment if they win by the other side. I disagree personally with copyright infringment of music and don't think the case is meritless in most cases, but the few ridiculous examples we've all heard of where they have gone overboard and sued grandmothers etc I should think that if the attorney or firm knew they could collect from the deep pocketed RIAA if they won they would be happy to take the case.
This completely ignores one fairly well established fact about businesses, and big businesses in particular--they are risk averse. No big company is going to make a habit out of rolling the dice on enormous legal fees, especially when the other side potentially has the stronger case.
All Hail the Maggott Show
Simple Solution: Legal fees are only payed to the defendant, if the plaintiff loses.
If the plaintiff wins, then they get what they wanted in the first place. If the defendants win, then the plaintiff has wasted the defendants time/money and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. This would help promote defending oneself in a trial, if they think they have a case, and discourage lawsuits banking on the defendant not being able to defend themselves and be forced to settle.
You fail to take into consideration the possibility of Joe Schmoe suing Big Corporation X. Big Corporation X rolls out its team of 50 lawyers, destroys Joe Schmoe because of it, and Joe Schmoe ends up having to pay for an army of lawyers he can't possibly afford. It works in both directions.
...Jack Thompson homeless.
> Right now, the Judges can order court costs paid, which are usually a rather
> piddling percentage of actual legal fees.
Right now judges can order legal fees paid and sometimes they do.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.