It's almost impossible for a case to lose Summary Judgement because all the guy has to show is that their MIGHT be a case, the defense has to prove there is absolutely no case for them to proceed on which is extremely difficult. I'm sure it won't win its case n court.
Judge Rules Lineage Lawsuit May Proceed
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
God damned ninja.
While I hope this guy loses his case miserably, I do agree with the judge's ruling. That should not have been the reason for this case to get thrown out, especially since it would be worse for precedent. When the courts do throw this case out or rules in favor against him it will be saying that game companies are not liable for people not being able to exert self-control, not because of EULAs.
While I hope this guy loses his case miserably, I do agree with the judge's ruling. That should not have been the reason for this case to get thrown out, especially since it would be worse for precedent. When the courts do throw this case out or rules in favor against him it will be saying that game companies are not liable for people not being able to exert self-control, not because of EULAs.
To be honest I'm more impressed with the amount of time he's spent on the game than that this actually went ahead. I mean, cases like this crop up all the time, but... 20,000 hours? Twenty THOUSAND!? Assuming that's actual logged game time, that's... *consults Windows calculator* that's over TWO YEARS! How is this POSSIBLE!?!?!?
Yeah, if I played something that long I doubt I'd have much basic motor function left either. Still, I'd know it was my own stupid fault.
Yeah, if I played something that long I doubt I'd have much basic motor function left either. Still, I'd know it was my own stupid fault.
Is this guy going to be "in the courtroom" via webcam? If not, doesn't that kinda contradict his argument?
I'm going to sue God for designing me so that I have to masturbate at least weekly. I never signed on for that!
I hope that he doesn't get a dime, but I'm glad his case proceeded, because it demonstrates that there are no exceptions to the law (the one saying you can't sacrifice right to sue in a EULA), and shows that EULA's are not infallible, which I think is a good thing, since I think EULA's in general are bullshit.Jaredin said:
I have my doubts this guy will win, and when the case is resolved against him, that will stop this nonsense entirely.
This could very well be big with software companies trying to make their EULA's legal documents.
I call this a positive thing.
This could very well be big with software companies trying to make their EULA's legal documents.
I call this a positive thing.
And I though sueing Fast Food Stores was the most rediculous court case ever.
I would love to see cases like this handeled by Judge Judy.
Then turn it into a driking game.
Right now I'm thinging, drink every time Judge Judy says "Balony"...... that might actually survice...
I would love to see cases like this handeled by Judge Judy.
Then turn it into a driking game.
Right now I'm thinging, drink every time Judge Judy says "Balony"...... that might actually survice...
They're effectively being sued for making a product he wants to play, and because he has an addictive personality. Fucking great.
Hey hold up...this is interesting...
EULA's CANNOT override the Participants legal rights?
That makes things VERY interesting, especially for Apple and Micro$oft.
EULA's CANNOT override the Participants legal rights?
That makes things VERY interesting, especially for Apple and Micro$oft.
Well I completely agree it's a ridiculous case, but at the same time, didn't something similar happen with tabacco companies? The release an addictive product with no warnings and got sued... I mean, to any normal person it seems pretty stupid and obvious (especially when it's a psychological addiction and not a physical one such as the body craving nicotine). It's not like I can sue Samsung for making a TV that I just HAVE to use every day! But yeah, I hope very little comes of this... That guy is a retard.
According to my business law professor, no EULA/waiver/etc. can override your fundamental rights.The_root_of_all_evil said:
OT: For those who say that this case is ridiculous, yes it is, but think about this: Ever wonder why products sometimes have strange, outlandish warnings against usage that anyone with a fraction of common sense would never attempt? It's mainly because at some time since the product was available, someone, somewhere used the product (sometimes multiple times) in the way the warning advises against.
Wouldn't surprise me if MMOs started having an addiction warning label after this court case is finished.
Heh heh heh... His name is Smallwood
OT: This is just silly. You can't sue a bar for getting you addicted to alcohol, why should you be able to sue game developers?
OT: This is just silly. You can't sue a bar for getting you addicted to alcohol, why should you be able to sue game developers?