EPTBlizzard sues Starcraft II hackers - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
| ||
|
fantomex
United States313 Posts
| ||
|
Spartan
United States2030 Posts
| ||
|
alexanderzero
United States659 Posts
| ||
|
Aoi_10
United States155 Posts
1) It's not a question of a Los Angeles court having jurisdiction over a foreign country; it's a matter of whether a federal court sitting in California has jurisdiction over the defendants. That's a bit of a technical legal question to which I'm guessing, without having seen this complaint or knowing many of the facts, that the answer is yes (probably a consent to jurisdiction in that shrinkwrap somewhere). The more interesting question is whether Blizzard could collect on any judgment, and unless the defendants own property in the US, they might not be able to. 2) Extradition is for criminal matters (i.e., the government is prosecuting someone for a crime), not civil matters (i.e., person/company X is pissed at person/company Y). 3) Just because someone is sued for $85 million doesn't mean anybody actually expects that $85 million (or $85,000) is going to be paid. Prayers for relief (i.e., the sections toward the end of each complaint that requests damages or other relief) are often ridiculous. Aoi (Esq.) | ||
Kinky
United States4126 Posts
| ||
|
ddrddrddrddr
1344 Posts
| ||
|
cucumber
United States116 Posts
On October 16 2010 14:35 Aoi_10 wrote: Starcraft-loving litigator here. Just to throw a few things out there: 1) It's not a question of a Los Angeles court having jurisdiction over a foreign country; it's a matter of whether a federal court sitting in California has jurisdiction over the defendants. That's a bit of a technical legal question to which I'm guessing, without having seen this complaint or knowing many of the facts, that the answer is yes (probably a consent to jurisdiction in that shrinkwrap somewhere). The more interesting question is whether Blizzard could collect on any judgment, and unless the defendants own property in the US, they might not be able to. CA IP lawyer here. There's a line of CA cases saying those clauses are usually unenforceable. The TOS/EULA/contract is superseded by CA law, which requires certain things for jurisdiction (eg, enough of the nucleus of facts happening in CA), no matter what the agreement purports to say. You'll see more sophisticated CA law firms using language like "the parties submit to jurisdiction in [CA county or whatever], where [enough of the stuff went down (i forget the standard offhand)]." If the federal court applies CA law to the non-federally preempted bits of the TOS, that LA language will probably be ignored. If the federal court applies its own law, I don't know enough facts to predict the outcome. | ||
|
AJMcSpiffy
United States1154 Posts
| ||
|
domane
Canada1606 Posts
| ||
|
tw!tch
United States563 Posts
| ||
|
whiteguycash
United States476 Posts
| ||
|
crazeman
664 Posts
On October 16 2010 13:43 johanngrunt wrote: Not too familiar with that case because I don't play WoW. What's that about? WoWGlider was a bot program that will level/play/farm with your character automatically for you. People used it to bot their accounts to 80 or to farm random shit for them to sell for gold. Blizzard basically sued them and won the case. There's a lot of law mumbo jumbo that I don't really understand so I can't really comment too much on it. On a side note, I actually had a RL friend who made a shitload of money (I don't really know how much) from botting/selling gold. He'd just let the bot run all day and sell the gold on some site. He even brought like 3-4 more computers/laptops to farm for him and I've seen him buying something like 10 copies of WoW from Best Buy at a time because they would all get banned from time to time. At some point Blizzard started banning botters so hard it wasn't profitable for him to bot for anymore so he gave it up. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32282 Posts
| ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
On October 16 2010 14:43 cucumber wrote: CA IP lawyer here. There's a line of CA cases saying those clauses are usually unenforceable. The TOS/EULA/contract is superseded by CA law, which requires certain things for jurisdiction (eg, enough of the nucleus of facts happening in CA), no matter what the agreement purports to say. You'll see more sophisticated CA law firms using language like "the parties submit to jurisdiction in [CA county or whatever], where [enough of the stuff went down (i forget the standard offhand)]." If the federal court applies CA law to the non-federally preempted bits of the TOS, that LA language will probably be ignored. If the federal court applies its own law, I don't know enough facts to predict the outcome. Even if they dont win the case, Blizzard can use these tactics to intimidate future hack creators. Force them to spend money, time, and sanity on getting lawyers to deal with lawsuits. This will probably deter a lot of people who dont have the money to hire competent lawyers or patience to deal with all the processes. I wonder if this is Activision cracking down or Blizzard just steppin their game up. | ||
|
infringement153
United States30 Posts
And even if it is, development of the hacks will just move to another country. Hackers will still exist. *not that I condone hacking, just stating it the way I think it will turn out* | ||
|
AJMcSpiffy
United States1154 Posts
On October 16 2010 14:44 domane wrote: Do hack developers make money off their abominations? I assumed until now that hacks were free. Some people just hack for the hell of it. Others hack and then sell their hack programs over the internet. The latter are the ones Blizzard is going to be gunning for. | ||
|
imPERSONater
United States1324 Posts
| ||
|
PandaPolice
Australia86 Posts
| ||
| ||
