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.
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.
The point of SI is to prevent people from suing the government for profit. That's not what's happening here -- Illinois proactively attempted to do something bad and they, not local merchants, should pay. As an occasional Illinois taxpayer, I can't say I think my money has been well spent here -- but it's Illinois' fault, not the court's.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.