For reference... Microsoft's TOTAL assets. (If everything was liquidized, according to data on Wikipedia) is something like $86 Billion.
Xbox Owner Sues Microsoft for $500 Billion (Yes, Billion)
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
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. ^Arontala said:
Excerpt "What a lot of people seem to be missing here. Is that he purposefully asked for a ridiculous amount fully expecting to be struck down. That was the point. Just asking for 5k, no news outlet would have batted an eye. He HAD to ask for a crazy number, it wouldn't have the same impact if he had used a reasonable number."
not only would this be a WIN tactic, it would exactly match what everyone expects from Microsoft and would give this retard the foot up the ass he needs oh so badly.Jamash said:
lol nice move. Probably should have asked for sum that Microsoft could have actually paid XD
He has my support, even though its just a passing fist pump heh.
p.s. pretty sure Microsoft isn't worth $500 billion. (roughly $250 bil last i checked)
He has my support, even though its just a passing fist pump heh.
p.s. pretty sure Microsoft isn't worth $500 billion. (roughly $250 bil last i checked)
So he's changed the contract and used that to screw microsoft over.
If he wins, he gets $500bn.
But what if he loses? The USA has the same common-law, precedent-based legal system that we do. That means that if he loses, a precedent will be set against changing contracts unilaterally to screw signatories.
That means that a precedent will be set which forbids large companies from unilaterally changing contracts, including TOS agreements, and using that to screw their customers.
He's not really out to make money, he's out to change laws!
It's a win-win situation! Brilliant!
If he wins, he gets $500bn.
But what if he loses? The USA has the same common-law, precedent-based legal system that we do. That means that if he loses, a precedent will be set against changing contracts unilaterally to screw signatories.
That means that a precedent will be set which forbids large companies from unilaterally changing contracts, including TOS agreements, and using that to screw their customers.
He's not really out to make money, he's out to change laws!
It's a win-win situation! Brilliant!
That's actually only 40 trillion you typed in there. You'd have to add an additional two zeros on there to make it four quadrillion.Jamash said:
I like how this guy is making a mockery of what large companies are doing to individuals. I think this is about on scale, considering these companies sue people for a few billion, when they'd be lucky to make close to a thousandth of that in their life time.
I think he's more out to make money.Danny Ocean said:
BUT that is a very nice point all the same. Kind of how the creators of 'From Dust' recently discovered their contracted terms had been changed without their knowledge by the parent company (EA I think) to incorporate always on DRM.
ok, you clearly have no clue about the syndrome.Thomas Guy said:
it does cause a few "eccentricities" mostly equating to an extremely over active imagination, learning issues and social problems.
however it is still a mild form of autism, albeit one of the more benign and in some cases beneficial.
such as one of the more famous people with it, Albert Einstein.
