268 réponses à ce sujet

[FataliTensei]

Good post OP

[leewells]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

leewells wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Baine10 wrote...

Yes, sadly people are tl;dr most of the time, which destroys any chance of meaningful discussion. Hence I keep my replies short, for the benefit of those which simple reading.

D_Dude1210 the OP said he's not suing or whatever, this is just a discussion, which, if someone becomes passionate enough, can go ahead and use this discussion as basis for whatever his actions may be.

Whatever someone does with regards to whatever information they're presented or exposed to is their own prerogative. To be honest, if anything here causes someone to sue Bioware/EA (however unlikely and ineffective that may be), good on them. Corporations should not simply engage in illegal activity and get away with it.

The purpose was moreover to let BioWare know that their actions (or lack thereof lol) is encroaching on disasterous ground. "FREE" Clarification of the ending or a free DLC of the real ending is the only real choices here to at least remain in the grey.

Quick question: isn't what they did (blatant, false, unrealized, specific promises made by top Bioware creative staff) already falling in the realm of false advertising. And as such already in line with criminal acts of Deceptive Marketing Practices?

Until ME3 no.  ME2 was pretty spot on with some drastically diffrent endings as well as decisions in that game (and ME1) that had consequence.  The consequences of all preceeding games have no bearing on the end of ME3.... You can get the same ending (if you are colorblind) no matter what you did by simply playing multiplayer (and you can't get the "best" ending without playing it). 

So I disagree and will go out on the perverbial limb to say that ME1 and ME2 lived up to the fan expections of marketing (in fact I would say they succeeding expectations), but ME3?  I'm sorry, but by simply saying you get to retake earth and live out the rest of your days in peace as part of the game fell flat on its face.

Misprint?  No, there are no retractions, in fact they're still is no retractions and no one admitting error to the ending yet, in fact it would seem by another thread that BioWare has concluded that there will be no other ending DLC's introduced that changes the current ending which either enforces the IT beliefs or enforces the fact that the development fell far from the marketing departments.

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

To the extent of the damages correct?  I could have sworn this is how it always interpreted.  I'm not sure how nominally plays into that because once damages are determined, you can't place a "nominal" price on it and it doesn't appear this applies to a class-action (the seeking of remedy from all customers) is falls catigorically into this either.

Yes, punitive damages in cases such as this -- were injunctive relief even a question -- would be a complete non-starter. That's where the FTC would come in were it a more competent and non-captured administration, to engage in punitive action on behalf of consumers.

And yes, it does apply to class action -- that's precisely what Concepcion addressed. Arbitration clauses can permissibly preclude class action. What I mean by "nominally" is that consumers can seek remedy in name only, but for practical purposes have no real power to do so. Individual arbitration is the means by which a consumer has the least power to seek remedy for damages incurred. That's one of the fundamental reasons class action emerged -- to counterveil the lack of power an individual consumer has compared to a corporation.

Modifié par humes spork, 03 avril 2012 - 02:19 .

[D_Dude1210]

leewells wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

leewells wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Baine10 wrote...

Yes, sadly people are tl;dr most of the time, which destroys any chance of meaningful discussion. Hence I keep my replies short, for the benefit of those which simple reading.

D_Dude1210 the OP said he's not suing or whatever, this is just a discussion, which, if someone becomes passionate enough, can go ahead and use this discussion as basis for whatever his actions may be.

Whatever someone does with regards to whatever information they're presented or exposed to is their own prerogative. To be honest, if anything here causes someone to sue Bioware/EA (however unlikely and ineffective that may be), good on them. Corporations should not simply engage in illegal activity and get away with it.

The purpose was moreover to let BioWare know that their actions (or lack thereof lol) is encroaching on disasterous ground. "FREE" Clarification of the ending or a free DLC of the real ending is the only real choices here to at least remain in the grey.

Quick question: isn't what they did (blatant, false, unrealized, specific promises made by top Bioware creative staff) already falling in the realm of false advertising. And as such already in line with criminal acts of Deceptive Marketing Practices?

Until ME3 no.  ME2 was pretty spot on with some drastically diffrent endings as well as decisions in that game (and ME1) that had consequence.  The consequences of all preceeding games have no bearing on the end of ME3.... You can get the same ending (if you are colorblind) no matter what you did by simply playing multiplayer (and you can't get the "best" ending without playing it). 

So I disagree and will go out on the perverbial limb to say that ME1 and ME2 lived up to the fan expections of marketing (in fact I would say they succeeding expectations), but ME3?  I'm sorry, but by simply saying you get to retake earth and live out the rest of your days in peace as part of the game fell flat on its face.

Misprint?  No, there are no retractions, in fact they're still is no retractions and no one admitting error to the ending yet, in fact it would seem by another thread that BioWare has concluded that there will be no other ending DLC's introduced that changes the current ending which either enforces the IT beliefs or enforces the fact that the development fell far from the marketing departments.

Well, of course ME1 and 2 aren't part of the discussion. I meant ME3 specifically and the numerous specific claims CH made about how the game would play out. They can't even claim miscommunication between departments as the person who made the claims was also directly engaged in the game development itself.

[Nostradamoose]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

leewells wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

leewells wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Baine10 wrote...

Yes, sadly people are tl;dr most of the time, which destroys any chance of meaningful discussion. Hence I keep my replies short, for the benefit of those which simple reading.

D_Dude1210 the OP said he's not suing or whatever, this is just a discussion, which, if someone becomes passionate enough, can go ahead and use this discussion as basis for whatever his actions may be.

Whatever someone does with regards to whatever information they're presented or exposed to is their own prerogative. To be honest, if anything here causes someone to sue Bioware/EA (however unlikely and ineffective that may be), good on them. Corporations should not simply engage in illegal activity and get away with it.

The purpose was moreover to let BioWare know that their actions (or lack thereof lol) is encroaching on disasterous ground. "FREE" Clarification of the ending or a free DLC of the real ending is the only real choices here to at least remain in the grey.

Quick question: isn't what they did (blatant, false, unrealized, specific promises made by top Bioware creative staff) already falling in the realm of false advertising. And as such already in line with criminal acts of Deceptive Marketing Practices?

Until ME3 no.  ME2 was pretty spot on with some drastically diffrent endings as well as decisions in that game (and ME1) that had consequence.  The consequences of all preceeding games have no bearing on the end of ME3.... You can get the same ending (if you are colorblind) no matter what you did by simply playing multiplayer (and you can't get the "best" ending without playing it). 

So I disagree and will go out on the perverbial limb to say that ME1 and ME2 lived up to the fan expections of marketing (in fact I would say they succeeding expectations), but ME3?  I'm sorry, but by simply saying you get to retake earth and live out the rest of your days in peace as part of the game fell flat on its face.

Misprint?  No, there are no retractions, in fact they're still is no retractions and no one admitting error to the ending yet, in fact it would seem by another thread that BioWare has concluded that there will be no other ending DLC's introduced that changes the current ending which either enforces the IT beliefs or enforces the fact that the development fell far from the marketing departments.

Well, of course ME1 and 2 aren't part of the discussion. I meant ME3 specifically and the numerous specific claims CH made about how the game would play out. They can't even claim miscommunication between departments as the person who made the claims was also directly engaged in the game development itself.

As I said earlier, most of all this is subjective. The only real point you have is the multiplayer not affecting the perfect ending, that is about all, seriously.

[D_Dude1210]

I posted the gameinformer interview here earlier. They made pretty specific claims that they didn't deliver on there.

[Nostradamoose]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I posted the gameinformer interview here earlier. They made pretty specific claims that they didn't deliver on there.

WHEN in the development stage were those made.


As in, is it a game informer from a year back?

Modifié par Nostradamoose, 03 avril 2012 - 02:27 .

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

To the extent of the damages correct?  I could have sworn this is how it always interpreted.  I'm not sure how nominally plays into that because once damages are determined, you can't place a "nominal" price on it and it doesn't appear this applies to a class-action (the seeking of remedy from all customers) is falls catigorically into this either.

Yes, punitive damages in cases such as this -- were injunctive relief even a question -- would be a complete non-starter. That's where the FTC would come in were it a more competent and non-captured administration, to engage in punitive action on behalf of consumers.

And yes, it does apply to class action -- that's precisely what Concepcion addressed. Arbitration clauses can permissibly preclude class action. What I mean by "nominally" is that consumers can seek remedy in name only, but for practical purposes have no real power to do so. Individual arbitration is the means by which a consumer has the least power to seek remedy for damages incurred. That's one of the fundamental reasons class action emerged -- to counterveil the lack of power an individual consumer has compared to a corporation.

I'll be honest, I think that has always been law in this state... I've always looked at injuctive relief as being an actional motion to the court to 'stop' (ie, motioning the court to pull ME3 from the shelves to stop further damages to others), not a way to seek out damages.

Modifié par leewells, 03 avril 2012 - 02:28 .

[D_Dude1210]

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I posted the gameinformer interview here earlier. They made pretty specific claims that they didn't deliver on there.

WHEN in the development stage were those made.


As in, is it a game informer from a year back?

What difference does it make when it was made? He made a claim w/c he never retracted. It still falls under the realm of false advertising.

[leewells]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

As in, is it a game informer from a year back?

What difference does it make when it was made? He made a claim w/c he never retracted. It still falls under the realm of false advertising.

This!

[Nostradamoose]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I posted the gameinformer interview here earlier. They made pretty specific claims that they didn't deliver on there.

WHEN in the development stage were those made.


As in, is it a game informer from a year back?

What difference does it make when it was made? He made a claim w/c he never retracted. It still falls under the realm of false advertising.

You mean that?

Catroi wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

From a section entitled THE PLAN:

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson "

From a section called OLD CONFLICTS, NEW ALLIES:

“Don’t expect to win the loyalty of the galaxy by simply completing a series of fetch quests,”

In a section called BEYOND THE TRILOGY:

“…
part of what you’re trying to do is save the universe so you can live
in it. That’s part of the promise, I think, for any great IP. It has to
be a world worth saving… I think Mass Effect has that quality to it. If
you get rid of the Reapers and win that, wouldn’t it be amazing to just live on the Citadel or just take a ship to Omega? That makes sense.”

from Game informer, issue 217, May 2011...

It's all pretty subjective if you want my opinion. Fetch quests are complements, you don't get the loyalty of the galaxy with them either. He did not lie there.

Matter of fact, none of this would hold in a court of law.

3rd statement in bold there is well... simply where the franchise is going towards, nothing more nothing less... I don't see how THIS falls in false ad. either. As for the Reaper Off button, it still remains purely under the artistic freedom of the writers and it could also be debatable with the rest of the story line, since, well, you don't simply find the off button, you have to find it and assemble a fleet around it. Even a far-fetched explanation like this could suffice if you are talking about narrative promises such as these.

Modifié par Nostradamoose, 03 avril 2012 - 02:44 .

[D_Dude1210]

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson"

^How is this subjective? Your opinion I guess. But I'd rather have a court of law decide that...

[Cobra's_back]

Thank you for this post. It is very educational. I really enjoy learning. Please keep up the good work.

[Nostradamoose]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson"

^How is this subjective? Your opinion I guess. But I'd rather have a court of law decide that...

'splained in my edit, it still remains a work of fiction which its authors have the right to modify as they see fit after the fact.

[Cobra's_back]

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I posted the gameinformer interview here earlier. They made pretty specific claims that they didn't deliver on there.

WHEN in the development stage were those made.


As in, is it a game informer from a year back?

What difference does it make when it was made? He made a claim w/c he never retracted. It still falls under the realm of false advertising.

You mean that?

Catroi wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

From a section entitled THE PLAN:

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson "

From a section called OLD CONFLICTS, NEW ALLIES:

“Don’t expect to win the loyalty of the galaxy by simply completing a series of fetch quests,”

In a section called BEYOND THE TRILOGY:

“…
part of what you’re trying to do is save the universe so you can live
in it. That’s part of the promise, I think, for any great IP. It has to
be a world worth saving… I think Mass Effect has that quality to it. If
you get rid of the Reapers and win that, wouldn’t it be amazing to just live on the Citadel or just take a ship to Omega? That makes sense.”

from Game informer, issue 217, May 2011...

It's all pretty subjective if you want my opinion. Fetch quests are complements, you don't get the loyalty of the galaxy with them either. He did not lie there.

Matter of fact, none of this would hold in a court of law.

3rd statement in bold there is well... simply where the franchise is going towards, nothing more nothing less... I don't see how THIS falls in false ad. either. As for the Reaper Off button, it still remains purely under the artistic freedom of the writers and it could also be debatable with the rest of the story line, since, well, you don't simply find the off button, you have to find it and assemble a fleet around it. Even a far-fetched explanation like this could suffice if you are talking about narrative promises such as these.

Are you a Lawyer or a Law student? Not trying to insult, just looking for factual information. I'm also not looking to sue. The subject is interesting.

[D_Dude1210]

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson"

^How is this subjective? Your opinion I guess. But I'd rather have a court of law decide that...

'splained in my edit, it still remains a work of fiction which its authors have the right to modify as they see fit after the fact.

He made a specific claim on the nature of the product. And did the exact opposite of said claim. I don't recall anything in Business Law and Advertising law that insulates works of fiction from making false claims on their products (correct me if I'm wrong, however).

[Nostradamoose]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I posted the gameinformer interview here earlier. They made pretty specific claims that they didn't deliver on there.

WHEN in the development stage were those made.


As in, is it a game informer from a year back?

What difference does it make when it was made? He made a claim w/c he never retracted. It still falls under the realm of false advertising.

You mean that?

Catroi wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

From a section entitled THE PLAN:

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson "

From a section called OLD CONFLICTS, NEW ALLIES:

“Don’t expect to win the loyalty of the galaxy by simply completing a series of fetch quests,”

In a section called BEYOND THE TRILOGY:

“…
part of what you’re trying to do is save the universe so you can live
in it. That’s part of the promise, I think, for any great IP. It has to
be a world worth saving… I think Mass Effect has that quality to it. If
you get rid of the Reapers and win that, wouldn’t it be amazing to just live on the Citadel or just take a ship to Omega? That makes sense.”

from Game informer, issue 217, May 2011...

It's all pretty subjective if you want my opinion. Fetch quests are complements, you don't get the loyalty of the galaxy with them either. He did not lie there.

Matter of fact, none of this would hold in a court of law.

3rd statement in bold there is well... simply where the franchise is going towards, nothing more nothing less... I don't see how THIS falls in false ad. either. As for the Reaper Off button, it still remains purely under the artistic freedom of the writers and it could also be debatable with the rest of the story line, since, well, you don't simply find the off button, you have to find it and assemble a fleet around it. Even a far-fetched explanation like this could suffice if you are talking about narrative promises such as these.

Are you a Lawyer or a Law student? Not trying to insult, just looking for factual information. I'm also not looking to sue. The subject is interesting.

Bar Student in the province of Quebec

[Cobra's_back]

Nostradamoose wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I posted the gameinformer interview here earlier. They made pretty specific claims that they didn't deliver on there.

WHEN in the development stage were those made.


As in, is it a game informer from a year back?

What difference does it make when it was made? He made a claim w/c he never retracted. It still falls under the realm of false advertising.

You mean that?

Catroi wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

From a section entitled THE PLAN:

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson "

From a section called OLD CONFLICTS, NEW ALLIES:

“Don’t expect to win the loyalty of the galaxy by simply completing a series of fetch quests,”

In a section called BEYOND THE TRILOGY:

“…
part of what you’re trying to do is save the universe so you can live
in it. That’s part of the promise, I think, for any great IP. It has to
be a world worth saving… I think Mass Effect has that quality to it. If
you get rid of the Reapers and win that, wouldn’t it be amazing to just live on the Citadel or just take a ship to Omega? That makes sense.”

from Game informer, issue 217, May 2011...

It's all pretty subjective if you want my opinion. Fetch quests are complements, you don't get the loyalty of the galaxy with them either. He did not lie there.

Matter of fact, none of this would hold in a court of law.

3rd statement in bold there is well... simply where the franchise is going towards, nothing more nothing less... I don't see how THIS falls in false ad. either. As for the Reaper Off button, it still remains purely under the artistic freedom of the writers and it could also be debatable with the rest of the story line, since, well, you don't simply find the off button, you have to find it and assemble a fleet around it. Even a far-fetched explanation like this could suffice if you are talking about narrative promises such as these.

Are you a Lawyer or a Law student? Not trying to insult, just looking for factual information. I'm also not looking to sue. The subject is interesting.

Bar Student in the province of Quebec

Thank you so much.

[D_Dude1210]

<= MBA with a marketing degree myself. :-p

[humes spork]

leewells wrote...

I'll be honest, I think that has always been law in this state... I've always looked at injuctive relief as being a method to 'stop' (ie, motioning the court pull ME3 from the shelves to stop further damages to others), not a way to seek out damages.

An injunction is just another way of saying court order, it can come in multiple different flavors. What you mentioned is just one -- rather extreme and highly unlikely -- potential form of injunctive relief. Another -- more common -- form of injunction is a court order to pay an already-agreed settlement.

The implication of saying "injunction" is that it is rather drastic measures, in that you are right though it differs by field of law. In business law seeking injunctive relief is something of a measure of last resort given corporate preference to arbitration opposed to litigation and the added costs of court fees opposed to arbitration fees and media attention. Just for the sake of contrast, in environmental law plaintiffs generally file for the harshest-possible means of injunctive relief straight away, pretty well for the exact reasons corporations prefer arbitration.

As directly pertains to the FTC, generally what happens is if the FTC investigates a complaint and finds cause to intervene, the administration will enter into arbitration with the corporation. They come to an agreement wherein the corporation redresses consumer complaints and may pay a fine, but if the corporation doesn't honor that agreement then the FTC files for an injunction.

Modifié par humes spork, 03 avril 2012 - 03:07 .

[Sentr0]

nice thread

[leewells]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

I posted the gameinformer interview here earlier. They made pretty specific claims that they didn't deliver on there.

WHEN in the development stage were those made.


As in, is it a game informer from a year back?

What difference does it make when it was made? He made a claim w/c he never retracted. It still falls under the realm of false advertising.

You mean that?

Catroi wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

From a section entitled THE PLAN:

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson "

From a section called OLD CONFLICTS, NEW ALLIES:

“Don’t expect to win the loyalty of the galaxy by simply completing a series of fetch quests,”

In a section called BEYOND THE TRILOGY:

“…
part of what you’re trying to do is save the universe so you can live
in it. That’s part of the promise, I think, for any great IP. It has to
be a world worth saving… I think Mass Effect has that quality to it. If
you get rid of the Reapers and win that, wouldn’t it be amazing to just live on the Citadel or just take a ship to Omega? That makes sense.”

from Game informer, issue 217, May 2011...

It's all pretty subjective if you want my opinion. Fetch quests are complements, you don't get the loyalty of the galaxy with them either. He did not lie there.

Matter of fact, none of this would hold in a court of law.

3rd statement in bold there is well... simply where the franchise is going towards, nothing more nothing less... I don't see how THIS falls in false ad. either. As for the Reaper Off button, it still remains purely under the artistic freedom of the writers and it could also be debatable with the rest of the story line, since, well, you don't simply find the off button, you have to find it and assemble a fleet around it. Even a far-fetched explanation like this could suffice if you are talking about narrative promises such as these.

Are you a Lawyer or a Law student? Not trying to insult, just looking for factual information. I'm also not looking to sue. The subject is interesting.

I'm just a lowly MBA in Business admin & minor of business (non-civil) law But I know how to research

[Nostradamoose]

D_Dude1210 wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

D_Dude1210 wrote...

“In Mass Effect 3, you know you need to take back Earth, but the path to victory is less clear at the outset. You won’t just find some long-lost Reaper “off” button; says Hudson"

^How is this subjective? Your opinion I guess. But I'd rather have a court of law decide that...

'splained in my edit, it still remains a work of fiction which its authors have the right to modify as they see fit after the fact.

He made a specific claim on the nature of the product. And did the exact opposite of said claim. I don't recall anything in Business Law and Advertising law that insulates works of fiction from making false claims on their products (correct me if I'm wrong, however).

Well, as I am not from the US, attempting to correct you on this particular law. However, I can tell you that courts will more than usually refrain themselves from things as subjective as evaluations of works of fiction unless it happens in copyright infringement lawsuits. Waaaaaay too many diverging opinions and interpretations possible. What should happen is the court actually rejecting the case because of this.

Hell, Fable creators would be kind of broke by now if that wasn't the case. Game creators need to make games that are playable, mostly bug free and respecting the genre they are advertising as. Anything narrative-wise is often too subjective for them to statute on. It also gets way too close for comfort to freedom of speech.

Also, for the record, (in the province of Quebec Law) it is possible for marketting to be boastfull and enjolivates certain things. It only must not pass a certain threshold. This system is also present in Canadian Common Law provinces, and so, I have no reasons not to believe it is not the case in American Law.  And I, for one, do not believe it passes that threshold. So, for those reasons I do believe that Mass Effect 3 passes the test and that any judge worth a damn should dismiss a case like this.

[leewells]

humes spork wrote...

leewells wrote...

I'll be honest, I think that has always been law in this state... I've always looked at injuctive relief as being a method to 'stop' (ie, motioning the court pull ME3 from the shelves to stop further damages to others), not a way to seek out damages.

An injunction is just another way of saying court order, it can come in multiple different flavors. What you mentioned is just one -- rather extreme and highly unlikely -- potential form of injunctive relief. Another -- more common -- form of injunction is a court order to pay an already-agreed settlement.

The implication of saying "injunction" is that it is rather drastic measures, in that you are right though it differs by field of law. In business law seeking injunctive relief is something of a measure of last resort given corporate preference to arbitration opposed to litigation and the added costs of court fees opposed to arbitration fees and media attention. Just for the sake of contrast, in environmental law plaintiffs generally file for the harshest-possible means of injunctive relief straight away, pretty well for the exact reasons corporations prefer arbitration.

As directly pertains to the FTC, generally what happens is if the FTC investigates a complaint and finds cause to intervene, the administration will enter into arbitration with the corporation. They come to an agreement wherein the corporation redresses consumer complaints and may pay a fine, but if the corporation doesn't honor that agreement then the FTC files for an injunction.

I completely understand injunctions... but to request or motion for injunctive relief in this state does not generally consist of damages as the nomincalture of the "relief".

[humes spork]

Nostradamoose wrote...

So, for those reasons I do believe that Mass Effect 3 passes the test and that any judge worth a damn should dismiss a case like this.

This is what it boils down to, not including the increasingly pro-business (with the exception of a handful of appellate jurisdictions) American legal landscape.