Aug. 25--Both the jury decision in the Michael Jordan lawsuit and the public reaction to it have confounded me.
Late Friday, jurors in a federal court in Chicago ruled that the parent company of the now-defunct Dominick's supermarket chain owed the former Bulls superstar $8.9 million because, without his permission, it used his name in a one-time, one-page congratulatory ad in a 2009 commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated.
I get why Jordan had to object. Unauthorized commercial use of his name, even for congratulatory purposes, would, if not nipped in the bud, erode his value as a paid pitchman.
But I don't get why he had to sue. Neither Dominick's nor Jewel-Osco -- against which he has a pending suit for a similar one-time ad in the same publication -- were repeat offenders. Sternly worded cease-and-desist letters would certainly have done the trick.
And I'm confounded by the size of the penalty for what was, after all, a minor infraction. You'd have to have an average annual salary of nearly $200,000 for a 45-year working career to earn the $8.9 million the jury gave Team Jordan for doing nothing other than get the vapors over one ad.
No wonder Jordan posed for a photo in the courthouse lobby afterward with his arms around two grinning, star-struck jurors, one of whom later told the Tribune that she didn't want to "insult" Jordan with a low award.
To judge from the themes sounded in many online comment threads, some members of the public have celebrated the verdict right along with MJ:
Good for him, protecting his brand! Dominick's tried to steal his good name to make a buck and deserved to pay! Safeway (the parent company on the hook) is a big corporation and needs to be made an example of! Jordan is donating his share of the award to local charities so the outcome is good!
But that doesn't confound me.
Public opinion splits on just about every issue, and I respect some of the points raised by those who believe justice was done in this case.
What confounds me is where the split occurs.
At first I thought it was along the conservative/liberal divide.
I saw conservatives hailing the award as a greed-is-good free-market triumph for Jordan, securing the well-earned value of his name when used in any commercial context.
And I saw liberals bemoaning the rich-get-richer victory of the hyperacquisitive superstar who earns tens of millions a year exploiting the sad human credulity that has, for example, transformed him into a trusted judge of quality in undergarments.
But when I tested this theory online I found it wanting. Based on the self-identification of commenters and my knowledge of members of my blog and Facebook communities, I concluded that both pro- and anti-verdict camps are scattered somewhat randomly across the political spectrum.
Some liberals have no sympathy for Big Grocery and see Jordan as the little guy, just protecting his rights and then donating to charity.
And some conservatives see the size of the award as symptomatic of a runaway civil justice system and Jordan as a pesky litigant exploiting legal technicalities.
In both ideological camps I detect among opponents of the verdict the same dismay I feel at the lack of proportion and common sense that landed this matter in federal court in the first place.
Dominick's and Jewel-Osco erred, whether innocently or in a devious effort to cash in on all our great memories of Jordan's basketball exploits. Everyone admits that.
I want to live under a legal system in which they would pay for their mistake with reasonable penalty -- an amount that reflects their measurable gains and Jordan's measurable losses, and is additionally sufficient to send a shot across the bow of any other retailers who might be tempted to sneak into Jordan's spotlight.
And I want to live in a society in which consumers are smart enough to know the difference between an endorsement and an offhand mention, and in which celebrity is viewed with a skeptical enough eye that all alone it's not worth tens of millions of dollars.
So maybe I'm not confounded so much as just disappointed.
Comments? www.chicagotribune.com/zorn
