California lost in the Supreme Court, now they pay big
mod
It's a pretty standard practice, to the loser go the legal fees, and because the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the industry they'll probably be required to cough up 1.1 million to cover the industry's legal fees. Good job Leland Yee way to drive your state deeper into debt.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/26/MNTR1KF7N9.DTL
On the flip side, California is hurting pretty bad right now, most of that self inflicted and through bad governance but still hurting.
If it was me I would count the money as if the case had been lost (of course they had a plan to pay the lawyers if they lost), put out some offical press releases about how the industry isn't going to kick a state when its down even though the state tried to curb stomp the industry several times, and recommend that they take a good long look at legislators who like to toss around "for the children" legislation when there are bigger issues like the broken prison/rehabilitation system.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/26/MNTR1KF7N9.DTL
Two industry trade groups - the Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association - relied on civil rights laws in asking for the fees. Federal law allows the prevailing parties in such cases to collect their costs from the losing side.
On the flip side, California is hurting pretty bad right now, most of that self inflicted and through bad governance but still hurting.
If it was me I would count the money as if the case had been lost (of course they had a plan to pay the lawyers if they lost), put out some offical press releases about how the industry isn't going to kick a state when its down even though the state tried to curb stomp the industry several times, and recommend that they take a good long look at legislators who like to toss around "for the children" legislation when there are bigger issues like the broken prison/rehabilitation system.
Replies
It is when you consider that that money comes from peoples taxes.
Seriously... sometimes i wonder what is the standard or who makes the decisions to pursue bad ideas into court and then loose that money. California is in debt not because of the recession. But because there is a lot of people in office there that are inept. Instead of taking the taxes away, why don't they take their salary away for 5 years. I am sure that they can cover the expenses by taking a % of their salaries.
I am still perplexed, not only in the US, what justifies insanes amount of money as salary. But i guess that is something for another discussion.
They just got to a point after a 10 year spending spree, where they don't need to barrow more money to make things work, which is good because the credit cards are all way beyond maxed out. In order to reign in their ball busting borrowing they slashed the hell out of the courts, education and social programs.
I think it would be awesome if the industry donated the money to something the government used to pay for but no longer can afford to. Like a dozen parks or pools with giant monuments to the industry in each parking lot.
The masses will side with the guy 'for the children' instead of the guy 'for the criminals!!!' every time.
People don't have the desire to drill deep on most issues and actually educate themselves, which means politicking is marketing yourself for that job and misleading them.
Not that I would disagree, but...yeah let me know how that works out for ya.