84 réponses à ce sujet

[El Jueta]

The only way that this lawsuit makes sense is if the game is not tagged as used/isn't in the used game shelf. For the rest, I just think the US has a legal system that allows ridiculous cases like this one to go through. I take it it's another douche trying his luck with a lawsuit against a major company. Any normal person who was let's say...distracted and bought the said game would simply go to the store and return it. This dude sues the company for losing $15 worth of DLC. It's a big joke. The guy isn't stupid though.

[wraithofblades]

Welcome to world of U.S. lawsuits. Home of the "hot coffee at McDonalds" and" Mcdonalds made me fat" lawsuits. people are retarded no sense in getting upset about it.

[El Jueta]

wraithofblades wrote...

Welcome to world of U.S. lawsuits. Home of the "hot coffee at McDonalds" and" Mcdonalds made me fat" lawsuits. people are retarded no sense in getting upset about it.

On the contrary, I'm not really familiar with your legal system, but everybody knows about these dumb cases and makes me think that it's your loopholed legal system that's a bit retarded, not the people who take advantage of it. It doesn't upset me, makes me laugh a lot though

[wraithofblades]

well im sure there are tons of these loopholes to be exploited, however i think the reason they get exploited is on the judges, they should be able to rule these lawsuits frivolous on sight, but they don't. I have no idea why.

[JosephShrike]

Because it's a civil dispute. If you can pay for it, then you can have a full trial instead of just a ruling. Upside is it barely costs the taxpayers anything. It's just the people involved.

[El Jueta]

JosephShrike wrote...

Because it's a civil dispute. If you can pay for it, then you can have a full trial instead of just a ruling. Upside is it barely costs the taxpayers anything. It's just the people involved.

I'm not even american and my legal knowledge is close to none. Just curious:

1 -  Can anyone plea for a civil dispute granted that they have the money to pay for it;
2 -  Does the amount you pay for it cover the entire cost of the process or is it just symbolic (or some kind of fee)?

[JosephShrike]

Yeah. Like say I sold you a box of cookies, and you ate the cookies and got sick, you could sue me for the cost of the cookies and your medical bills. But (and this might just be specific to Texas), there are a number of court and filing fees you would have to pay to make the case, and, really, that can add up. So if this person suing GameSpot doesn't win, he's going to be out at least a few hundred bucks on top of his 15 he spent on DLC.

Like you can sue anyone for pretty much anything. The reason it doesn't get that out of hand is because unless you go after a large corporation, suing someone for a trivial thing that judge will probably dismiss generally comes back on the plaintiff, especially if the defendant counter sues.

Honestly, even though I work with it, the legal system in this country is pretty twisted and weird. I sort of fall back on the Churchil quote, "I believe democracy is the worst form of government, except all others", and apply it to the justice system to give me some perspective 

Modifié par JosephShrike, 26 mars 2010 - 10:05 .

[KCFender]

Yes, it's quite horrible that any plebian peon can get legal representation and have a judge here their grievances. I'd love for those of you who laugh at such a system to explain to me how yours is better.



There are some frivolous lawsuits, but sometimes those lawsuits the media labels frivolous turn out to be substantial cases with perfectly righteous claims.



It's why we have a court system, instead of mob policy. Because there's always nuances, and just because you got ripped off for "only" $15 does not mean you don't have rights to grievances. Yes this case sounds silly, but until it goes through the legal process, I can only assume, and you don't spell assume without ***.

[Matshelge]

Crazy_Cat_Lady wrote...

It's different than buying a burnt disk, because you're buying the actual licensed product.  EA/Bioware already made their money on the original purchase.  Supporting the customer who buys the game used is no different than if the original owner had kept it and continued to play the game.  You're still supporting one person with a licensed copy of the game.

EA sold that licence to first person, not the second one. If they want support they go to the last seller.
You don't go to GM when your car breaks down outside the used cardealership you just got the car from.

[El Jueta]

KCFender wrote...

Yes, it's quite horrible that any plebian peon can get legal representation and have a judge here their grievances. I'd love for those of you who laugh at such a system to explain to me how yours is better.

There are some frivolous lawsuits, but sometimes those lawsuits the media labels frivolous turn out to be substantial cases with perfectly righteous claims.

It's why we have a court system, instead of mob policy. Because there's always nuances, and just because you got ripped off for "only" $15 does not mean you don't have rights to grievances. Yes this case sounds silly, but until it goes through the legal process, I can only assume, and you don't spell assume without ***.

I didn't meant offense in my post, here in Portugal it works pretty much the same, except normally the frivolous lawsuits are dismissed. I'm not saying it works better, it has other (many) shortcomings, namely and most importantly the time that most cases take to get solved, and in some instances they take so much time that the case loses its validity and is archived. I only laugh at some cases which are, in my opinion, plainly ridiculous to discuss, much less in a court of law.