Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Consolidation

View
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

22. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 9, 2011, 21:13 Ant
 
winnetou wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 12:16:
NBA 2k12 is still unpatched on the PC, just like previous years. Unfortunately, this version seems to be less balanced than previous ones, even with the patch(es?).
That's why I didn't get this game. They just don't care. Did they ever fix that online games' high graphics?
 
Avatar 1957
 
Ant @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx and Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net ...
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 9, 2011, 11:17 Dades
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 9, 2011, 10:36:
Yes, of COURSE that is why Microsoft is doing it. Derr! At this point it's probably malpractice for an attorney to NOT put it in a contract.

Stop trying to blame the lawyers and using hyperbole, it's Microsofts agreement so thats where the buck stops. The future is uncertain, we have Microsoft fucking their customers and no clear way of knowing whether they will get away with it. Right now I have less options than I did before and Microsoft has a chance to dodge liability. I don't care what other companies might or might not do unless I am signing a contract with them.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 9, 2011, 10:36 Beamer
 
Dades wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 20:44:
Beamer wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 18:08:
Yes, the Supreme Court allowed it in the AT&T case. Was that a click-through?
And since the Supreme Court case several State courts have still allowed class action lawsuits to be filed and continued.

Are you some corporate stoogie ignoring the point on purpose? Microsoft inserting it into their agreement is a clear attempt to avoid class action suits. Some states refusing to recognize it doesn't mean it's ok for them to do this.

We're having a hard time seeing Microsoft as some innocent party in this, you're going to need to draw a line for us.

Yes, of COURSE that is why Microsoft is doing it. Derr! At this point it's probably malpractice for an attorney to NOT put it in a contract.

Wait, that's important, so I'll let it sink in here - if an attorney does NOT put this in a contract he can likely be sued for malpractice. Do you know what that means?
THIS WILL BE IN EVERY SINGLE CONTRACT YOU SIGN WITH A CORPORATION IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.

EVERY.
SINGLE.
ONE.

And states are finding ways around this, because it's unconscionable to hold people to this in 99% of contracts.
Is this something to be happy about? Of course not.
Is this something to act like Microsoft is evil for? No. They're not good, but they're not evil. Every single company will do this because if they don't and they get drawn into a class action lawsuit they will sue their attorneys, so their attorneys will make sure this clause is in everything.
Is this something that will last? No fucking way. The Court really fucked this up. It will be a short bump in our legal history before it's completely decimated and torn apart.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 20:44 Dades
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 18:08:
Yes, the Supreme Court allowed it in the AT&T case. Was that a click-through?
And since the Supreme Court case several State courts have still allowed class action lawsuits to be filed and continued.

Are you some corporate stoogie ignoring the point on purpose? Microsoft inserting it into their agreement is a clear attempt to avoid class action suits. Some states refusing to recognize it doesn't mean it's ok for them to do this.

We're having a hard time seeing Microsoft as some innocent party in this, you're going to need to draw a line for us.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 2011, 10:32.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 19:32 Ruffiana
 
Trying to imagine what circumstance would prompt me to be part of a class-action lawsuit against a service I don't pay for.

Negligence leading to CC info being released maybe?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 18:08 Beamer
 
Dades wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 17:33:
Zero chance of that. He'll file the class action lawsuit, same as ever, and let the judge sort it out.

The supreme court already allowed these clauses, the judge likely would be forced to say you signed the right away through the agreement and he'll be right. Why are you trying to make this sound like nothing? If it was worthless Microsoft wouldn't have changed the agreement. Microsoft didn't say we couldn't go to Neptune, an imaginary right if ever there was one. Their goal is to remove a very real one.

Yes, the Supreme Court allowed it in the AT&T case. Was that a click-through?
And since the Supreme Court case several State courts have still allowed class action lawsuits to be filed and continued.

The Supreme Court did not say "this is always acceptable under all circumstances."

From Florida:
"And yet, Concepcion has changed nothing in that a thorough, case-by-case analysis of the applicable state law doctrine of unconscionability, applied to the specific terms of an arbitration agreement, is still required. In sum, Concepcion has not relieved courts from their obligation to scrutinize arbitration agreements for enforceability on a case-by-case basis where one party resists arbitration; rather, Concepcion provides guidance as to what courts may consider when fulfilling that obligation." NJ also invalidated arbitration agreements as recently as August. NM did it in July.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 17:33 Dades
 
Zero chance of that. He'll file the class action lawsuit, same as ever, and let the judge sort it out.

The supreme court already allowed these clauses, the judge likely would be forced to say you signed the right away through the agreement and he'll be right. Why are you trying to make this sound like nothing? If it was worthless Microsoft wouldn't have changed the agreement. Microsoft didn't say we couldn't go to Neptune, an imaginary right if ever there was one. Their goal is to remove a very real one.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 17:00 Beamer
 
Dades wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 16:55:
Beamer wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 15:18:
But no attorney can say it's not enforceable right now, and no one has a reason to challenge it just yet. It's a stupid thing, but so what? What have you lost for it? Right now, nothing at all. It isn't until you need to sue that there's a legal reason to challenge it.

That is extremely poor logic.

People are being deprived of an opportunity to hold a corporation responsible through a class action. Most people cannot afford the legal burden required to hold a large company responsible on their own, that is why class actions were required.

You're not, though. You're being told you're being deprived. If I tell you that you're not allowed to go to Neptune am I depriving you of something? No. But if you manage to build a rocket that can transport you to Neptune and I try to stop it, then I'm depriving you of something.

Right now you have no damages. None. Nothing monetary. Nothing emotional. Nothing at all.

Weird crap appears in contracts all the time. Nothing is litigated until it matters. Like I said, no attorney will ever read this and turn to his client and say "oops, to arbitration we go." Zero chance of that. He'll file the class action lawsuit, same as ever, and let the judge sort it out. And, given the way this was handled by Microsoft, I'd be shocked and amazed if it actually got denied, as it's never actively agreed to (unlike a cellphone contract which is signed.)

Also, no user will ever say "damn, I can't sue." For one, that would assume the user is even aware of this (he isn't), for another it would assume he cares what it says (he doesn't.)
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 16:55 Dades
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 15:18:
But no attorney can say it's not enforceable right now, and no one has a reason to challenge it just yet. It's a stupid thing, but so what? What have you lost for it? Right now, nothing at all. It isn't until you need to sue that there's a legal reason to challenge it.

That is extremely poor logic.

People are being deprived of an opportunity to hold a corporation responsible through a class action. Most people cannot afford the legal burden required to hold a large company responsible on their own, that is why class actions were required.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 15:35 theyarecomingforyou
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 15:18:
Only a court can decide that. But if there's ever a reason to sue it will go to the court. And the court will almost definitely say "it's not valid."
Check out the link in my earlier post - the US Supreme Court earlier this year determined that clauses prohibiting class action lawsuits are legal, so it's already "valid" in the US.

So what have you lost? Your right to hold a company legally liable for their wrongdoing.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 15:18 Beamer
 
Zarkonis wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 15:11:
I'm wondering just how long it'll be before some other attorney looks this crap over and determines it's not enforceable.

Only a court can decide that. But if there's ever a reason to sue it will go to the court. And the court will almost definitely say "it's not valid."

But no attorney can say it's not enforceable right now, and no one has a reason to challenge it just yet. It's a stupid thing, but so what? What have you lost for it? Right now, nothing at all. It isn't until you need to sue that there's a legal reason to challenge it.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 15:11 Zarkonis
 
I'm wondering just how long it'll be before some other attorney looks this crap over and determines it's not enforceable.  
Slow and steady might not win the race at first, until you shoot everyone ahead of you.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 14:48 mch
 
LittleMe wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 14:32:
Fuck law suits, the real power the consumer has is when he takes his money elsewhere.


While I don't disagree, taking your money elsewhere is becoming more difficult. By my count, Sony, EA and now Microsoft have all pulled this crap.

Anyway, still not reactivating my Live subscription.
 
PSN: CaseDesignate
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 14:48 theyarecomingforyou
 
LittleMe wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 14:32:
No doubt MS's reputation with consoles has a black eye over this incident. Fuck law suits, the real power the consumer has is when he takes his money elsewhere.
True. But where do you go? Sony already incorporated the same clause into their contract, while PC gaming is again controlled by... Microsoft. Technically you could opt for Linux or Mac... but their gaming selection is negligible, while Apple has questionable ethics at best. You've got Nintendo but their console can't even handle 720p. Even outside of gaming you have every major company harvesting personal information and selling it on to advertisers.

I agree with the sentiment but the only real option is for government intervention, otherwise you'd have to give up gaming entirely. There should be consumer groups that push issues like this onto mainstream news / opinion shows, combined with social media campaigns to hit companies like Microsoft financially. Instead, this will barely even register anywhere and companies will continue to abuse consumers.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 14:32 LittleMe
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 13:55:
I know the US is pretty shit at protecting consumer rights but even I find it hard to believe that it is possible for companies to update their T&C years after buying a product, with the sole aim of preventing anyone from suing them.

No doubt MS's reputation with consoles has a black eye over this incident. Fuck law suits, the real power the consumer has is when he takes his money elsewhere.

 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 14:27 Beamer
 
Class action law suits rarely benefit the class directly, but they penalize the company directly. If you believe that penalization is the only way to get reform, they work.


Regardless, this "agreement" will almost definitely not hold up in court. No attorney will read it and not file a lawsuit - he still will. It's just that the first step will be arguing about whether the court should hear it or if it should be moved to arbitration.

Odds of it being moved? Slim.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 13:55 theyarecomingforyou
 
Verno wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 12:49:
I'd be interested in seeing actual stats on frivolous suits vs legitimate class actions, at least in terms of the gaming industry because I don't believe that to be true. I think it's more of a case of companies not wanting to be held properly liable for their fuckups.
This. Frivolous lawsuits rarely ever get anywhere, yet the few that do are used as ammunition against laws that protect consumer rights. Politicians do this, as they misrepresent 'consumer rights' as 'bureaucracy' or 'red tape'. If frivolous lawsuits are a serious issue then the government should be lobbied to address it. Instead we see backdoor efforts designed to limit the liability for corporate wrongdoing.

I know the US is pretty shit at protecting consumer rights but even I find it hard to believe that it is possible for companies to update their T&C years after buying a product, with the sole aim of preventing anyone from suing them.

Then again, we have just witnessed the largest ever bailout of public corporations. It would have actually been better financially - and morally - to allow them all the banks to go bankrupt and for the government to simply reimburse any money lost by savers. Instead, banks that committed fraud on an unbelievable scale have profited from their crimes, while hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs. The shitty sub-prime scandal in the US - which is the primary cause of the entire crisis - has cost 710,000 jobs in the UK. And yet the government / courts are handing over even more power to corporations to stop them being held accountable? Ridiculous.

PS - Did you know that Santander has fees for going overdrawn that amount to 819,000% APR?
PPS - Sorry for getting political but shit like this really annoys me!

 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 12:49 Verno
 
avianflu wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 12:44:
not that I entirely agree with the growing trend for companies to force consumers to agree to "no class action."

But these companies are doing this because there's a subset of lawyers who do nothing but profit with these suits -- and more importantly the consumers get $10 out of settlement. But the settlements are very costly to the companies and those settlement costs end up going right back to the consumer to pay.

So as a consumer, I have mixed feeling about class action lawsuits.

I'd be interested in seeing actual stats on frivolous suits vs legitimate class actions, at least in terms of the gaming industry because I don't believe that to be true. I think it's more of a case of companies not wanting to be held properly liable for their fuckups. Microsoft fought tooth and nail to avoid acknowledging the 360 had design defects which were causing issues that affected literally millions of customers. It took a class action suit and widespread condemnation by consumers and the press to make them finally wake up, take responsibility and fix it. I really don't want to see that same situation play out where consumers are forced to go through arbitration.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Morning Consolidation Dec 8, 2011, 12:44 avianflu
 
not that I entirely agree with the growing trend for companies to force consumers to agree to "no class action."

But these companies are doing this because there's a subset of lawyers who do nothing but profit with these suits -- and more importantly the consumers get $10 out of settlement. But the settlements are very costly to the companies and those settlement costs end up going right back to the consumer to pay.

So as a consumer, I have mixed feeling about class action lawsuits.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: You can't opt out of the Dec 8, 2011, 12:36 Verno
 
mch wrote on Dec 8, 2011, 12:09:
Such horseshit. Glad my Xbox Live account is inactive. While I may [have to] accept the update, I don't plan on reactivating it.

The best part is that you can't get to your account to turn off your subscription without accepting the terms. Truly, irony at its finest.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo