Xbox Owner Sues Microsoft for $500 Billion (Yes, Billion)

[Goldeneye1989]

I hope this guy gets counter sued into oblivion. I really do.

You mean, The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Remember that not many people use that term at all.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

I do get his point but this plan is just retarded. I know this wont work with like 99% certainty but i seriously hope it doesn't. 500 million would mean thousands upon thousands of people losing their jobs and the economy does not need that right now.

 

[Griffolion]

This can only be bad. Because now all the major companies will amend the terms of service to be even more draconian by making stipulations to avoid this type of crap.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Only in America...
Thank our sane politicians that this kind of crap or sums of money can not go trough in Finland. Honestly America you need to cope a part of our law in which it is stated that you are not allowed to achieve economical benefit with the court you can only be recompensated for your losses or repaid the damaged.

This is stupid, he is a insult of a being to anyone who has Asperger's (Including me) and deserves no slack for hes stupidity. We who have Asperger's usually have higher intellect when it comes to logic/common sense/patterns. He is just clinically stupid.

 

[SinisterGehe]

I want to hear how he was 'damaged' to the tune of half a trillion.

By breach of contract

But what was the benefit of the contract, far as I know there was no service or goods being provided that could have a estimated material loss. What did he loose that has to be replaced with the sum of half a trillion.

 

[Treblaine]

I hope the result of this is that the courts view big corporate legal firms with similar scrutiny as this lone nutter.

There is abuse of the Tort system and a grandstanding case like this may be just what is needed to de-fang some of their more poisonous claws.

 

[mrF00bar]

Hahaha. Just another troll out to make money. Typical.

I would laugh if he did actually make some money out of trolling like this xD

 

[masticina]

As fun as this sounds.. I feel this would be laughed out of court.

 

[sinterklaas]

Even if his case was perfectly defendable in court, common sense should always take precedence over the law and as such the judges should just send him home emptyhanded for being an annoying prick.

 

[Asehujiko]

I know 100% certain this is illegal in NL. Some semi-illegal businesses tried this on consumers, and oh man, did that anger the judge in question, calling it criminal, aggressive and worthy of jailtime...

Depends on whether the judge is corrupt or not. BREIN(anti piracy crusaders/extortion racket) gets away with sending snail mail letters across europe with the message "if u dont respond in 6hrs, u lose and we own all ur stuff liek servers kkthxbye". They also use criminal tricks like "consulting" every single international capable lawyer's office so that their victim is completely unable to acquire legal help due to conflicting interests and seizing and "investigating" the victim's property by themselves instead of letting a neutral third party do it and then destroying it and blaming the victim for obstruction/get a default judgment in their favour.

But of course, these noble gentlemen "fight piracy" so the end justifies the means, amirite?

 

[The Lugz]

I hope Microsoft pay him the $500 Billion, but in Microsoft Points.

It would be so funny if they deposited 4 Quadrillion Microsoft Points, that's 40000000000000 non transferable Microsoft Points, into his account, then terminated his account as he requested.

MUHAHAHHAHAHAHA

you sir win an internet, this is exactly what i want Microsoft to do.

seriously. i would pay them to do this.

 

[imperialreign]

Doubt this guy's gonna win . . .

If he has the right to change the ToS, so does MS. I think, what probably happened, is that MS' accepted his changes, applied them, then changed them right back, while with-holding the right to notify the user. Or follow up with the general statement that by the user making use of the service, he accepts the updated changes to the ToS.

 

[The Lugz]

I think he's more out to make money.

how?
ms do not have the funds to pay him, so he cant possibly win because nobody would loan Microsoft 500Bn to pay some random asshole an inplausable ammount of damages

the very best he could get out of this is Microsoft closing his xbox account and refunding him for his Microsoft products at full retail plus legal fees

more likely than not, Microsoft will just ignore him entirely as the kook he is...

he's proving a point, and setting a precedent nothing more

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

For reference... Microsoft's TOTAL assets. (If everything was liquidized, according to data on Wikipedia) is something like $86 Billion.

I think that you may be taking that joke just a little too seriously.

It was an amendment to my previous post. I in no way take the suit seriously.. see my previous post. It just furthers the point that he in no way expects to win, let alone 500B when that is CLEARLY not a feasible number. ^

Wait, what? I agree with you. Gonzo was just making a joke about how Micro$oft is regarded as having access to trillions of dollars.

Are we still spelling microsoft with a dollar? Jesus people dont think this kind of douche baggery is ONLY reserved for microsoft, every company changes terms of service and expects you to accept it just by using it.

For example spotify. It changed recently and i read through carefully because it was a massive downgrade to the service. It said i got to listen to a song 5 times a month. 3 months on and some songs are STILL LOCKED. I check again. Its been changed. Without notification. All companies do this if im honest. The nicer ones pop a little screen up for you to read and if you DONT read it then its your own damn fault what happens. I accept that and i dont read them in general. I dont really care about these screens. Its their service and this is capitolism. If i dont like it i wont use it. And then they fail. No one is making anyone use these services. I could open a service that meant i could punch my users in the face. Its a dick move sure, but its even more of a dick move if people supported me and gave money to a service that did these things. We are as much to blame as the companies. No one knows how to boycott.

That said this proves the point nicely, this mans silly case. I hope microsoft realize that its intended to be a joke and dont just steam roll him legally then counter sue for a pointless case.

 

[The Lugz]

Well. I think it's a forgone conclusion that this guy is a giant asshole. Hey, I called him an asshole! Do you think he'll sue me for a hundred billion now?

99 trillion googleplexi, most likely
and i'm gunna sue you for making me write a reply! failure to accept fault within 60 seconds warrants a $100 fine!

!!!!

what is the world coming to eh..

 

[The Funslinger]

Hahaha. Just another troll out to make money. Typical.

This, exactly. But I've had a thought (and I'm probably wrong, but still.) He basically stated Microsoft had to A) accept his changes or B) terminate his Xbox Live Service. But they can't take away something he's already paid for, so his current xbox live time needs to time out and surely if he pays to renew it then that should count as rescinding his amendment?

 

[LorienvArden]

I hope this guy gets counter sued into oblivion. I really do.

You mean, The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Remember that not many people use that term at all.

I seriously hope you have an endorsment deal with Bethesda to use these words, or you might get hit by the full might of their legal derpartment...

There, I fix it for your:
You mean, the ancient rolled parchemtnts: Nothingness.

In other news: Yes, both parties of a contract can change the contents of said contract. He should have given the company a reasonable time to respond though and gone to court to settle it.
Would have been fun to watch.

Heres something you could try in your spare time: Go pick up a new cellphone with a contract, when the guy in the shop gives you the contract and walks away for a minute, strike out some part of the contract that you don' like and sign it. If the employee accepts the signature, whatever you crossed out in the contract will not apply.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Spoiler

"Accept they never agreed to anything at all, so nothing would really change."

True, at first, but this could start up a foundation for a law to be made that does limit when a company can or can't force you to accept the terms of service if you didn't read it.

Yes, here all Microsoft had to do with the altered terms of service to have them become "legal" was never even look at them, but is that so much more than when we get a new terms of service for an update and click accept without really reading it?

However, this is all dependent on what the final legal statement is. It may not even make it that far. Hell, maybe he'll even be forced (or talked) into making a deal out of court.

Yes it is different because we still have to click accept. If we don't click accept then it doesn't just magically become accepted. Also he won't get talked into making a deal outside of court, because he has no case, and Microsoft knows it they will not give him any money at all, because if they do then it opens the door for everyone else to try this. Microsoft will want his defeat to be as public as possible.

Spoiler

"Accept they never agreed to anything at all, so nothing would really change."

True, at first, but this could start up a foundation for a law to be made that does limit when a company can or can't force you to accept the terms of service if you didn't read it.

Yes, here all Microsoft had to do with the altered terms of service to have them become "legal" was never even look at them, but is that so much more than when we get a new terms of service for an update and click accept without really reading it?

However, this is all dependent on what the final legal statement is. It may not even make it that far. Hell, maybe he'll even be forced (or talked) into making a deal out of court.

They continued providing the service. Xbox live is provided via the EULA agreement, one of the parties proposed a change to the agreement. When a company updates the EULA your continued use is implied consent. If you send them notice of updating the agreement them continuing the service implies consent.

Say you pay a landscaping company to mow your lawn. You pay monthly, and decide that the rate is too high. So you send them a letter saying you are only willing to pay half, so they can accept the lower rate or discontinue the service. If they go ahead mowing your lawn you would rightfully assume they accept the new terms. Its an important concept in his case... its not just that they didn't refuse the change, they continued the relationship. If the letter makes it to the front desk and some secretary loses it that's not really the homeowners fault. His responsibility was to get the letter to the company, he did that. It doesn't legally matter that Microsoft read or did not read the letter, what matters it they implicitly accepted it by continuing a relationship after having been served with the new terms. The whole thing is stupid, but these companies DO things like this, Mr. Stebbins here just took it to an extreme so it would get attention.

Take a look at the changes in ITunes EULA. Once upon a time you bought a song for 99 cents and you could burn it to a CD. Then they decided to add DRM to only let you burn it three times. You have two choices, continue to use the software and accept getting less than you expected when you initially purchased, or quit using it and lose your money altogether.... Not exactly fair. Same thing as the PS3 linux thing, removed functionality that was understood to be there at purchase. We're just a few baby steps from game publishers tossing out an EULA change after a game has been out for a year asking for you to pay the list price again. Wanna keep playing? Pay for it again, we decided the license was only good for a year after the fact. Companies can and do push people around by changing EULA's. It seems contrary to me that so many would rally against someone trying to turn an abusive business practice onto the folks who came up with it.(not accusing you of this btw)

Both sides need to approve of a contract or contract change. Not accepting or declining doesn't make it an automatic accept. When you get an update on your itunes, you have the option to accept or decline. Accepting lets you use the service, declining doesn't. Not clicking anything doesn't immediately accept itself in a day. If you are unhappy with a contract it is up to you to try to cancel it. Not to mention that this guy didn't go through any legal channels. The guy mowing your lawn is under contract. But if he was and you sent him a letter saying you were only going to pay him half he could still keep coming and mowing your lawn and sue you when you didn't pay the fee in the contract. Because both parties have to agree to a contract and the party unhappy with the contract is the one responsible for trying to end it.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Kinda sounds like a dick. Sorry, but I have no time for fools like this. Of course he won't win anything, no one will take this twat seriously.

Sure, but he isn't trying to be any greater a dick than MS or any other corporation that pulls this same exact BS on their consumers. That's like saying a rape victim is a dick if she tries raping her attacker right back. Most gamers are willing to bend over and take whatever crap the corporations are willing to give, I'm glad there's one who figured out how to give it right back. I'm sure he wont get what he's asking for but I hope he wins something.

And besides, what's $500Bil to MS?

Over five times what they own? Actually, thats a great example of an interesting Mathematical anomoly in humans that I've been writing about, which goes that the more distant the number from the person (in this case large sums of money) the less we can differentiate. Someone immediately would know the difference between £1 and £5, but less people acknowledge the difference between, say, a millionaire and billionaire, despite the fact that the poorest billionaire is a thousand times richer than the poorest millionaire. In this case, Microsoft own roughly $100 Billion in assets, and so suing them for five times that is pretty damn ridiculous.

Anyway, I digress. I agree that big corporations are arseholes, but I don't believe that an act is acceptable if it's done in revenge. Raping someone because you've been raped isn't right, nor is murder for murder sake. Remember, stuff like Sept 11th was based in revenge as well, but it doesn't make up for the massive losses of life on either side of that situation.

Those are the words of someone who?s never been raped. I?ve never been either. However if someone who was raped felt the only way they could feel better about it was raping that person who did it (not just random people) back, I certainly wouldn?t stop her... Or him for that matter. There?s a difference between that and the person becoming a random serial rapist afterwards; that?s not even a fine line.
I was being sarcastic about 500B being a drop in the bucket for them but I know what you mean and the reason people make less of a distinction is because there is such a drastic difference between how much the richest 2% own, and how much (pretty much) everyone else owns. We?re talking about a huge gap and it keeps getting bigger every year. So that amount of money is way beyond most people?s frame of reference. That?s another reason to like this guy, someone out there trying to force the economics to trickle down because as much as the politicians would have you believe that they spread the wealth on their own (and to be fair a few of them do), most don?t unless they have to.