The money laundering comments are somewhat warranted, though. While anyone can run a business into the ground as long as the money holds out. People are responding to the sense that there's something really off about this situation.
There's just enough evidence to make the laundering suggestion plausible. Is it a nice thing to do? No, but I think in this case we're past that.
Yeah, in all seriousness, I don't know if I've just been supremely lucky, or I'm already the exact kind of ruthless bastard that law schools are looking for.
But, most of the lawyers I've met and interacted with have been genuinely decent people.
I'm sorry, can I just say, lay off the lawyers. At least as a whole? I mean, I get the lawyer jokes, and general distaste when it comes to attorneys, particularly the ones that get media attention...
But, for every John Steele, or Charles Carrion, or Joseph Rakofsky, there are as many as one, to one and a half laywers who aren't trying to figure out how to gain cosmic power through bathing in the blood of virgins. Well, you know, yet.
If EA was smart, they wouldn't have tried always on DRM again after Spore... or after seeing Ubisoft take it on the chin over and over because of their DRM. They might have looked at UBIsoft's DDOS attacks, and said, "no, this isn't really a good idea", and yet, here we are again.
Yeah, San Andreas has you working for either the CIA, or some covert ops spookworks at one point. GTA4 has some plotline with someone in the DoJ, though I never finished either game. I'm not sure about the rest of the series.
Well, Mass Effect 3 wasn't released on Steam, for one thing, so asking them for a refund would be... a little weird.
And, yeah, there were some people asking for refunds, over it, or threatening to boycott EA/Bioware/Origin/whatever as a result.
That said, it didn't reach the same levels as this one did. In large part because ME3 (mostly) the game it claimed to be. There were some really idiotic or flat out misleading statements in the lead up and advertising, but nothing quite like what we had with War Z.
The game claimed to have 100 player servers, when it launched with server population caps of 50, it claimed to have multiple maps ranging from 100 - 400 square km each. It shipped with one, that they claimed was 100 square km, but, from people actually examining it, it looks like it's most likely a little under 10. It claimed to have private servers, that wasn't functional. It claimed to have a skill system, that didn't exist at all. (I know the article covered these, but still.)
To put this in perspective, with Mass Effect 3, the best analogy would be if all the stuff that was on the box was still there, but the game itself contained only what we saw in the demo.
Rather hilariously, after the game went on sale on Steam as a "foundational release", there were still notifications in game saying that features were still part of an alpha state, and would be subject to change.
As much as I loathe what Bioware did with ME3, they did deliver the game they said they would. It was just, like all writing from Bioware, terminally idiotic.
I suspect it's the former. If Cooper had known he was CEO of these shells, he could have just liquidated them and closed up shop if he really had cold feet.
Arbitration, which was an avenue open to them. No, the fact of the mater is, we actually get these jury trials because the companies involved actually want them.
Also, simply having a patent doesn't mean you [i]can't[/i] look at a case like a sane and rational individual...
To be fair, asking a guy with a patent that should have been invalidated on prior art to sit on a jury that was ruling on prior art was probably a mistake, but at least it's also grounds for appeal.
Yeah, the sad truth is, if the jury had actually been careful, not raced through the forms, not awarded damages for things they judged non-infringing, and then finally didn't open their mouths about why they did what they did, we wouldn't be talking about any of this now... :\
I'm kinda duplicating another post elsewhere, but, from what little I know of California state law, it would be Jury Misconduct...
With a couple caveats... everyplace I see the term Jury Misconduct, it's in criminal trials. So there's that. It also seems to operate under the assumption that the Jurist's misconduct comes to light before the Jury rules.
Once the Judge determines that misconduct has occurred, it looks like they have enormous latitude on how to proceed. They can yell at them (I think the term is technically "admonish"), discharge the jury, declare a mistrial... (with or without prejudice).
I don't see the judge explicitly having the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct, but, more importantly, I also don't see anything saying the judge doesn't have the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct.
I may be an idiot, but I'm genuinely not seeing where he enriched himself from the ruling. I suppose if the Jury came back and said "there's no such thing as prior art" then, yes. I get where he might have perceived this as personal gain, but, like I said... how is he enriching himself off an unrelated patent case?
I'm pretty sure that's Jury Misconduct, tampering is when it's someone who's not on the jury who's trying to influence it. When it's a jury member, it's misconduct... it might also be a contempt charge, but I'm not a lawyer.
Re:
The money laundering comments are somewhat warranted, though. While anyone can run a business into the ground as long as the money holds out. People are responding to the sense that there's something really off about this situation.
There's just enough evidence to make the laundering suggestion plausible. Is it a nice thing to do? No, but I think in this case we're past that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contant Bickering????
Yeah, in all seriousness, I don't know if I've just been supremely lucky, or I'm already the exact kind of ruthless bastard that law schools are looking for.
But, most of the lawyers I've met and interacted with have been genuinely decent people.
Re: Re: Contant Bickering????
I'm sorry, can I just say, lay off the lawyers. At least as a whole? I mean, I get the lawyer jokes, and general distaste when it comes to attorneys, particularly the ones that get media attention...
But, for every John Steele, or Charles Carrion, or Joseph Rakofsky, there are as many as one, to one and a half laywers who aren't trying to figure out how to gain cosmic power through bathing in the blood of virgins. Well, you know, yet.
Re:
If EA was smart, they wouldn't have tried always on DRM again after Spore... or after seeing Ubisoft take it on the chin over and over because of their DRM. They might have looked at UBIsoft's DDOS attacks, and said, "no, this isn't really a good idea", and yet, here we are again.
Re: again...
No, this is just Teri Buhl.
Re: Re:
Hitman: Blood Money certainly made it to stores... though the point there wasn't to overthrow the government, just assassinate the president.
And, that probably was going to be the plot of Condemned 3, if the second game's sales hadn't doomed the franchise.
More vaguely, Splinter Cell: Conviction is about going after the government, if not specifically assassinating government figures.
Re:
Yeah, San Andreas has you working for either the CIA, or some covert ops spookworks at one point. GTA4 has some plotline with someone in the DoJ, though I never finished either game. I'm not sure about the rest of the series.
(untitled comment)
What did John Steele do originally to rise to infamy? Other than being really bad at being a lawyer, I mean.
Re:
Well, Mass Effect 3 wasn't released on Steam, for one thing, so asking them for a refund would be... a little weird.
And, yeah, there were some people asking for refunds, over it, or threatening to boycott EA/Bioware/Origin/whatever as a result.
That said, it didn't reach the same levels as this one did. In large part because ME3 (mostly) the game it claimed to be. There were some really idiotic or flat out misleading statements in the lead up and advertising, but nothing quite like what we had with War Z.
The game claimed to have 100 player servers, when it launched with server population caps of 50, it claimed to have multiple maps ranging from 100 - 400 square km each. It shipped with one, that they claimed was 100 square km, but, from people actually examining it, it looks like it's most likely a little under 10. It claimed to have private servers, that wasn't functional. It claimed to have a skill system, that didn't exist at all. (I know the article covered these, but still.)
To put this in perspective, with Mass Effect 3, the best analogy would be if all the stuff that was on the box was still there, but the game itself contained only what we saw in the demo.
Rather hilariously, after the game went on sale on Steam as a "foundational release", there were still notifications in game saying that features were still part of an alpha state, and would be subject to change.
As much as I loathe what Bioware did with ME3, they did deliver the game they said they would. It was just, like all writing from Bioware, terminally idiotic.
Re:
I suspect it's the former. If Cooper had known he was CEO of these shells, he could have just liquidated them and closed up shop if he really had cold feet.
Re:
Shouldn't that be:
Cause of death: Forgot to look down or close mouth
Re:
Arbitration, which was an avenue open to them. No, the fact of the mater is, we actually get these jury trials because the companies involved actually want them.
Re: Re: Are juries really so silly?
They're also like focus groups in that they can't really say anything useful or intelligent, but we're forced to listen to their opinions anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: facepalm...
Files a patent for a cat that has been teased by a laser pointer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: facepalm...
Also, simply having a patent doesn't mean you [i]can't[/i] look at a case like a sane and rational individual...
To be fair, asking a guy with a patent that should have been invalidated on prior art to sit on a jury that was ruling on prior art was probably a mistake, but at least it's also grounds for appeal.
Re:
Last I heard he was in a good mood, yes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jury Nullification in action
Yeah, the sad truth is, if the jury had actually been careful, not raced through the forms, not awarded damages for things they judged non-infringing, and then finally didn't open their mouths about why they did what they did, we wouldn't be talking about any of this now... :\
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm kinda duplicating another post elsewhere, but, from what little I know of California state law, it would be Jury Misconduct...
With a couple caveats... everyplace I see the term Jury Misconduct, it's in criminal trials. So there's that. It also seems to operate under the assumption that the Jurist's misconduct comes to light before the Jury rules.
Once the Judge determines that misconduct has occurred, it looks like they have enormous latitude on how to proceed. They can yell at them (I think the term is technically "admonish"), discharge the jury, declare a mistrial... (with or without prejudice).
I don't see the judge explicitly having the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct, but, more importantly, I also don't see anything saying the judge doesn't have the authority to cite for contempt in the case of misconduct.
Re: Re:
I may be an idiot, but I'm genuinely not seeing where he enriched himself from the ruling. I suppose if the Jury came back and said "there's no such thing as prior art" then, yes. I get where he might have perceived this as personal gain, but, like I said... how is he enriching himself off an unrelated patent case?
Re: Isn't this...
I'm pretty sure that's Jury Misconduct, tampering is when it's someone who's not on the jury who's trying to influence it. When it's a jury member, it's misconduct... it might also be a contempt charge, but I'm not a lawyer.