NationStates Jolt Archive

http://webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?SESSIONID=&aId=18331

I for one am glad that finally states are being held responsible for trying to enact laws that were apparently clearly unconstitutional. It cost the gaming industry that much to hold the states to the standard they should be holding themselves

Good.

Umm...could we get that in quarters please? :D

Umm...could we get that in quarters please? :D

You win this thread.

http://webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?SESSIONID=&aId=18331

I for one am glad that finally states are being held responsible for trying to enact laws that were apparently clearly unconstitutional. It cost the gaming industry that much to hold the states to the standard they should be holding themselves
$500,000 eh? Nice. More money for better games. Everyone wins!

$500,000 eh? Nice. More money for better games. Everyone wins!
Though they had to SPEND that in legal fees to start with …

Why isn't this done more often? They should do this to PRMC

LOLZ PWNDXZOR! :gundge:

Right?

$500,000 eh? Nice. More money for better games. Everyone wins!
Unless it's EA who gets the money...

Unless it's EA who gets the money...

In which case we will need to lead some nerds in to "liberate" the money.

I will NOT have another shitty James Bond game.

Unless it's EA who gets the money...
Introversion FTW!

Jack's gonna be maaaaad.

Though they had to SPEND that in legal fees to start with …

Does the US not have the systme whereby the the losing side pays the cost of both sides?

http://webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?SESSIONID=&aId=18331

I for one am glad that finally states are being held responsible for trying to enact laws that were apparently clearly unconstitutional. It cost the gaming industry that much to hold the states to the standard they should be holding themselves

W00T! PARTY!

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Huzzah! In the paraphrased words of Thomas Jefferson - It does me no injury if my neighbor plays 20 violent videogames or no violent videogames. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. The law is finally stepping up to respect that principle.

Does the US not have the systme whereby the the losing side pays the cost of both sides?

It's not automatic, because this would lead to intimidation by wealthy potential defendents who could go around doing as they pleased and terrify people into not suing by saying "go ahead, sue, we'll hire a multi-million dollar lawyer and not only will we win, but you'll have to pay his bill.

It's not automatic, because this would lead to intimidation by wealthy potential defendents who could go around doing as they pleased and terrify people into not suing by saying "go ahead, sue, we'll hire a multi-million dollar lawyer and not only will we win, but you'll have to pay his bill.

Doesn't that imply a lack of faith in the fairness of the system? If you have a solid case in the first place then you should have nothing to worry about and if teh case is frivilous then you deserve to pay the other sides costs.

*Snickers* ...hehehe hahahah HAHAHA!!! That is great! This is as good as Mayor Richard "Asshat" Daily being sued by the FAA for his nazieque destruction of Meigs field!

Doesn't that imply a lack of faith in the fairness of the system? If you have a solid case in the first place then you should have nothing to worry about and if teh case is frivilous then you deserve to pay the other sides costs.
If people in the US sue people as much as it seems, then nobody would go to court.

"You have spilt lukewarm coffee on my newspaper, I will sue you now."

"You are a bastard of the highest order"

"Now I'm having some hate crimes in there also"

"Grrr"

If people in the US sue people as much as it seems, then nobody would go to court.

"You have spilt lukewarm coffee on my newspaper, I will sue you now."

"You are a bastard of the highest order"

"Now I'm having some hate crimes in there also"

"Grrr"

That's the point. In the UK if you lose you pay, simple as that. This reduces the number of pointless lawsuits and the existance of no-fee law firms means that justice isn't out of reach for poor people.

Does the US not have the systme whereby the the losing side pays the cost of both sides?
That is what is happening here ... the state lost and the game industry is working to make them pay the tab

Hopefully it will become a law where the loser pays the others cost, might help more and stop pointless (and STUPID) lawsuits against poor or rich people.

That is what is happening here ... the state lost and the game industry is working to make them pay the tab

I think paying costs is automatic in the UK though, which is not the case in the US.

Anyway, I'm glad the state got spanked. My only quibble is the state has to pay, which really sort of punishes the taxpayers. It should come directly out the pockets of the stupid politicians who thought this up.

Eraclea']Hopefully it will become a law where the loser pays the others cost, might help more and stop pointless (and STUPID) lawsuits against poor or rich people.
May also scare away the poorer less equiped people that have been wronged but cant afford to both go against a massive lawyer army and pay for THEIR costs if they manage to railroad them

May also scare away the poorer less equiped people that have been wronged but cant afford to both go against a massive lawyer army and pay for THEIR costs if they manage to railroad them

Ah but you forget something...a small firm (but confident) can now go far beyond what the original maximum can be, and allow a poor person to bring in great lawyers and prove it, without having the firm or the victim being largely effected.

And this will prevent stupid lawsuits 'like over salted fries' from being commonplace, and it will make firms CONSIDER it before taking the case. Even in civil this would be good, but primarly CRIMINAL trials.