Xbox Owner Sues Microsoft for $500 Billion (Yes, Billion)
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If I had that kind of money... I would Buy Sega and Activision and Fire everyone involved in Sonic Unleashed/Getting rid of Guitar Hero and green lighting Skylanders respectivly. Then buy Square Enix and force them to make Kingdom hearts 3, Remake FF7, and cancel FF13-2.
That is what I would do.Jamash said:
a man with aspergers is trying to take on microsoft. why i am not surprised.
his plan sucks though. he has zero legal power to deal here. courts around here would just laugh at him. theres no case.
On the other hand, if somoen puts an end to xbox live im happy.
his plan sucks though. he has zero legal power to deal here. courts around here would just laugh at him. theres no case.
On the other hand, if somoen puts an end to xbox live im happy.
Na, i think it would be pretty funny if they wrote him a letter saying if he, doesnt sort things out with them in 24 hours HE OWES THEM 500Billion, then pay the mail man $25 to post it in the wrong letter box, into the house noone lives in in his street, they still posted him the letter right? just because it doesnt go directly to him "Isnt theyre fault"
see how he likes that
see how he likes that
I'll agree with you there: probably the last thing on the victim's mind but if it was the first thing on the victim's mind, I certainly wouldn't get in the way.Verlander said:
The over litigious nature of many americans pushes me to be skeptical when I first here stories like this too but sometimes these "making a point" lawsuits are just the modern equivalent of Robin Hood...and with less bloodshed too.
Its a win win. He either ends up ridiculously rich, or he sets up a precedent that anybody can use as defense against such manipulations in the future. Either way, he takes advantage of the system to do some damage. I like him, even if he is a bit of a tool.Kwil said:
He has a legitimate point, and truthfully pointing out his reasons and the way he is acting is kind of nessicary to the overall point. If he just remained silent as to how he's going about it, it wouldn't mean as much. His points about where he sends the documents and similar things is important to understanding what he's saying about the companies in question and how ordinary people are hit with these EULAs and such. Likewise his comments about not putting anything in paper make pefect sense in context because the contracts that game companies have had defended exist ONLY within the software, they are not actual, physical, hardcopy documents either.
His point is pretty much that if a company like Microsoft can successfully win cases based on what amounts to text on a computer screen with no signed hardcopy, and no legal review or notarization to prove anything was ever acknowleged by the person on the other end other than the usage of service, then he should be able to win this case according to the precedents that have been established. In fact if he LOSES this case it represents a breakdown of the legal system and it's inherant logic because it would mean that the goverment is declaring that the same rules do not apply to Microsoft as to everyone else... and that puts everything in question.
Arguably while this guy is making a bit of a scene out of it... shades of Michael Moore's "TV Nation" (from back when I actually thought he was funny and had some respect for him), he's not wrong. In fact as I've pointed out before, one of the problems with most attempts to go after gaming/software/computer companies has been that the peopling doing so have not picked the proper avenues of attack. I suspect largely because all of the lawyers who are experts in this kind of thing wind up accepting payments from the big companies so they won't be able to represent an opponent due to "conflict of interests" even if they never wind up directly representing the company (big law firms making a lot of money through such payoffs, a fee to be there as a "potential advisor" or something).
One point about the EULAs and things that have never been pursued is the length of the contract and the complexity of the terms. Not to mention the referances made to various laws and statutes in many cases which are not presented as an attachment to the document for review. Contract law was never my thing when I was in school, but the subject was touched on. In general in the US things like "fine print" hold less sway than you would think in the movies, as a contract can be literally tossed out if it's deemed too complicated or intentionall misleading for the people involved. This is where things like notaries come into play, notaries being neutral parties who review a contract to achieve an understanding of it, but also sign off to verify that all parties involved understood it. That way in the case of a dispute the notaries can be brought on to give their understanding and verify that all parties understood the contract the way that they did. If questioned on these grounds I'm not sure if such contracts being reasonable to the average schmuck gameplayer would fly, especially seeing as they go on, and on, and on in many cases. Then of course there is the whole other issue of money being accepted before the contract, which has also not been accepted. You pay for yoru game box/game in many cases and only get the contract AFTER money has changed hands, which potentially means it's just text since agreeing to a contract was never part of the actual purchuse agreement. With digital distribution this can be less clear, but for boxed games and products it's a point that has never been properly pursued, technically they should make you sign the contract as part of the purchusing process when money (or credit) changes hands.
At any rate, I'm rambling. I doubt the guy will get 500 billion, but I'm kind of hoping the court system actually does it's job properly on these grounds, since tournabout is fair play, and awards the guy a couple of billion "in proportion to the damages". Enough to really hurt Microsoft, but not drive them entirely out of business. Then hopefully that will adjust some attitudes and make the industry a kinder, gentler, place for use end users, especially if the precedent works in such a way that the companies can't respond by trying to get even more ridiculous using some variation of the same policies.
Hey, if he wins maybe he'll kick a couple of million to me since I'm cheering for him.
From where I am sitting this whole situation is a thing of beauty, and it's really going to take some backhanded interpetations of the law to say that this guy isn't just as right as the company he's going after is, especially seeing as it's won on grounds that are just as dubious.
His point is pretty much that if a company like Microsoft can successfully win cases based on what amounts to text on a computer screen with no signed hardcopy, and no legal review or notarization to prove anything was ever acknowleged by the person on the other end other than the usage of service, then he should be able to win this case according to the precedents that have been established. In fact if he LOSES this case it represents a breakdown of the legal system and it's inherant logic because it would mean that the goverment is declaring that the same rules do not apply to Microsoft as to everyone else... and that puts everything in question.
Arguably while this guy is making a bit of a scene out of it... shades of Michael Moore's "TV Nation" (from back when I actually thought he was funny and had some respect for him), he's not wrong. In fact as I've pointed out before, one of the problems with most attempts to go after gaming/software/computer companies has been that the peopling doing so have not picked the proper avenues of attack. I suspect largely because all of the lawyers who are experts in this kind of thing wind up accepting payments from the big companies so they won't be able to represent an opponent due to "conflict of interests" even if they never wind up directly representing the company (big law firms making a lot of money through such payoffs, a fee to be there as a "potential advisor" or something).
One point about the EULAs and things that have never been pursued is the length of the contract and the complexity of the terms. Not to mention the referances made to various laws and statutes in many cases which are not presented as an attachment to the document for review. Contract law was never my thing when I was in school, but the subject was touched on. In general in the US things like "fine print" hold less sway than you would think in the movies, as a contract can be literally tossed out if it's deemed too complicated or intentionall misleading for the people involved. This is where things like notaries come into play, notaries being neutral parties who review a contract to achieve an understanding of it, but also sign off to verify that all parties involved understood it. That way in the case of a dispute the notaries can be brought on to give their understanding and verify that all parties understood the contract the way that they did. If questioned on these grounds I'm not sure if such contracts being reasonable to the average schmuck gameplayer would fly, especially seeing as they go on, and on, and on in many cases. Then of course there is the whole other issue of money being accepted before the contract, which has also not been accepted. You pay for yoru game box/game in many cases and only get the contract AFTER money has changed hands, which potentially means it's just text since agreeing to a contract was never part of the actual purchuse agreement. With digital distribution this can be less clear, but for boxed games and products it's a point that has never been properly pursued, technically they should make you sign the contract as part of the purchusing process when money (or credit) changes hands.
At any rate, I'm rambling. I doubt the guy will get 500 billion, but I'm kind of hoping the court system actually does it's job properly on these grounds, since tournabout is fair play, and awards the guy a couple of billion "in proportion to the damages". Enough to really hurt Microsoft, but not drive them entirely out of business. Then hopefully that will adjust some attitudes and make the industry a kinder, gentler, place for use end users, especially if the precedent works in such a way that the companies can't respond by trying to get even more ridiculous using some variation of the same policies.
Hey, if he wins maybe he'll kick a couple of million to me since I'm cheering for him.
From where I am sitting this whole situation is a thing of beauty, and it's really going to take some backhanded interpetations of the law to say that this guy isn't just as right as the company he's going after is, especially seeing as it's won on grounds that are just as dubious.
Oh good Lord you're right, It's a Xanatos gambit the likes of which I've never seen in the real world before. Unfortunately these large multinational companies tend to be above the law when it comes to crap like what happens in EULAs and other contracts. Look at the multitude of programs and devices that track your movements, scan your computer and files, and do other things criminally invasive to your personal privacy, but they mention it in their contracts, which no one ever reads, and when it is pointed out we shake our heads, wave our fingers.... and do absolutely nothing about it. Mircosoft will probably be able to afford the lawyer-power to settle this case without having to change any of their business practices, although it was a noble try.Kwil said:
As much as I'd love to see a regular joe take it to big business, his entire side of the 'dispute' is obnoxious, unreasonable and bewildering in it brashness.
Like if you had a 6 year old daughter who tried to tell you that if you didn't complete a cross-globe trip in an hour, you'd have to buy her a castle.
This is a (slightly) more grown-up, legal nonsense equivalent.
Even if the law could technically fall on his side; he's going against big business in corporate America. The law would change.
Taking out the corporate corruption and string pulling angle; what judge would ever want to oversee a precedent that would cause that kind of economic damage and put that many people out of work?
One man hoarding $500 billion dollars worth of wealth is obscene in nothing other than itself. The only way it could be seen as remotely noble is if he flew a balloon and threw out the cash down to the people. Even that would be a dumb way to go about nobility.
Like if you had a 6 year old daughter who tried to tell you that if you didn't complete a cross-globe trip in an hour, you'd have to buy her a castle.
This is a (slightly) more grown-up, legal nonsense equivalent.
Even if the law could technically fall on his side; he's going against big business in corporate America. The law would change.
Taking out the corporate corruption and string pulling angle; what judge would ever want to oversee a precedent that would cause that kind of economic damage and put that many people out of work?
One man hoarding $500 billion dollars worth of wealth is obscene in nothing other than itself. The only way it could be seen as remotely noble is if he flew a balloon and threw out the cash down to the people. Even that would be a dumb way to go about nobility.
Eh, I don't care about this guy and I don't particularaly like Microsoft, so it's win/win for me no matter what.
No it won't. The whole point of an end-user agreement is that you agree to the company's terms in exchange for use of their thing. Let's say Microsoft was offering unlimited soda if you agreed to certain terms; obviously, by drinking the soda you are implying you agree to the terms. If you don't like the terms, they're not out of order to say you can't drink their soda; they have no obligation to provide a service to you if you won't play ball.Kwil said:
David Stebbins of Arkansas provides no service to Microsoft, certainly not one worth half a trillion dollars. His claim is as stupid as claiming that writing 'I get to keep the books' on the back of your library card is proof you don't have to pay fines or return books if the librarian doesn't notice.
The XBox Live Terms of Use [http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/legal/LiveTOU] that he signed up to specifically state that they can be altered in any way by Microsoft and continued use equals your agreement with changes; it does not contain provision for the user to do likewise, meaning any alteration would require mutual consent from both parties (without him dictating to them what he thinks counts as consent), or would require that he formally dispute it. Microsoft can simply say that their non-reply was an answer in the negative; he has nothing in the contract he agreed to saying what their not replying to him means, and therefore no leg to stand on.
The whole point of a contract is it's an agreement; he agreed to Microsoft's terms when he accepted them, including the one that says they can modify them. Microsoft never agreed to his terms. If the law actually worked like this, every piece of junk mail that came through your door would require you to send off a cancellation form or accept that you just signed up to a service and now owed them money. Shit like that is illegal for a reason.
It was a fine article until this point. Why oh why does every Escapist writer try to inject some idiotic personal commentary?Andy Chalk said:
Obviously it isn't going to hold up in court. Why would you even suggest that you're "not sure" if it would hold up in court? It's some random guy asking for $500 billion on the basis of "well you didn't say you WOULDN'T pay me $500 billion". This is not a serious claim, it's clearly a practical joke to highlight the unfairness of most software contracts.
And his jerking the system around is the entire point. I'm honestly not sure what the last two sentences are supposed to convey. Saying that his jerking around the system has drained your sympathy is like saying that you thought that it was totally cool when your kid TPed the neighbor's tree, but your sympathy was drained when you realised they were using toilet paper.
Seriously, how on earth are these people still writing for the Escapist?