Gamer files frivilous lawsuits against Microsoft, Nintendo

[Spidey-Bat]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6240940.html

In September, a federal judge dismissed a First Amendment lawsuit brought against Sony by a disgruntled gamer who had been banned from the PlayStation Network. Undeterred, that gamer appealed the decision last month, and this week filed a new suit against Microsoft and Nintendo, this one bypassing the Bill of Rights and instead citing the Declaration of Independence.

In the suit, the San Jose, California gamer takes exception to a recent Nintendo Wii system update that disables access to unauthorized third-party programs like the Homebrew Channel. Specifically, the plaintiff is upset about losing the ability to use a program that would unlock the character Rosalina in Mario Kart Wii. Ordinarily, a player would need to have a Super Mario Galaxy save file on the system in order to unlock that character.

"In federal terms, the plaintiff who relies heavily on video games for happiness, would like the federal court to decide if Nintendo is interfering with certain players' pursuit of happiness which is stated in the United States Declaration of Independence," the suit states, "where Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying the protection of 'property' as a goal of government, replacing the idea with 'happiness.'"

The suit then states the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776, and quotes the portion dealing with the unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

As for the Microsoft portion of the suit, the gamer had an Xbox 360 system suffer the "red ring of death" failure, and he claims he can't afford the $100 fee Microsoft would charge him to fix it. The suit claims the plaintiff's 360 is "only one of two ways in which he relies on to socialize," as he suffers from depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, and Crohn's disease.

The gamer is asking for $75,000 from Microsoft due to "the stress put on the plaintiff having to find a way to acquire a new Xbox 360 system and the sadness he will have in the mean time of finding one he can afford." As for Nintendo, the plaintiff wants $5,000 for interfering with his pursuit of happiness, and an injunction preventing Nintendo from blocking access to the Homebrew Channel or the program he used to unlock Mario Kart Wii characters.

I can't believe some lawyer took his case.

 

[SuBe]

I said this about the other thread, with the kid and the Xbox.

This is a Voter. Or will be.

:shakes head:

 

[SuBe]

I said this about the other thread, with the kid and the Xbox.

This is a Voter. Or will be.

:shakes head:

 

[Mister J]

They really need to start taking action against the attorneys that bring these dumbass cases to the docket.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I just can't believe he's using "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" to support his case. You can make the argument paying taxes infringes on your pursuit of happiness.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

This kid needs to get out more, I mean, he probably got out to go to the court hearings, that was probably about it.

 

[Majik1387]

Lawyer's need to make their money. Recession, remember.

 

[Raiden]

I think the money he's paying to his lawyer could've gone toward a new Xbox 360 console, and the time he's spending in the court could've helped him get a Gamefly account that lets him borrow a Super Mario Galaxy used to unlock that secret character. But I guess that kid wants his 15 minutes of stupidity for the world to see.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I am ashamed that this guy is from my hometown.

 

[SuBe]

You can be honest, it's you, isn't it?

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Looks like this guy

Was no Nintendo.

 

[Metamorpho1977]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6240940.html



I can't believe some lawyer took his case.

Somebody should kick his ass and steal his lunch money.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Looks like this guy


Was no Nintendo.

Try again

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Picture works fine for me.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I meant the joke. It stunk.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

You stunk.

 

[Spider-Vader]

What a waste of time & money....& a life.

 

[Addendum]

Looks like for him that

Nintendon't.

Hows that

 

[Majic Walrus]

They really need to start taking action against the attorneys that bring these dumbass cases to the docket.

No they don't. Our legal system, thankfully, allows ******** stupid cases to be heard and most likely dismissed. The purpose of this case I suspect has less to do with winning and more to do with gaining public attention to Nintendo's practices.

 

[Wolfwood]

Hows that

Much better.

I hate *******s like this, they get so much attention and then make the rest of us gamers look really bad.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

You can be honest, it's you, isn't it?

It might have been if I was still living in San Jose, CA.

Unfortunately, I don't live there anymore

 

[Handsome Rob]

No they don't. Our legal system, thankfully, allows ******** stupid cases to be heard and most likely dismissed. The purpose of this case I suspect has less to do with winning and more to do with gaining public attention to Nintendo's practices.

So, if I want to sue you for frivolous reasons, you're fine with incurring the cost of paying for a lawyer, the loss of time at work, and the stress of being sued . . . all for a "stupid" case? Or, maybe you would prefer to settle out of court--regardless of your innocence--for an amount that is less than defending yourself in court would be?

Sorry, but I think we need to adopt a "loser pays" system for lawsuits at a minimum.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

About time someone went after Mircosoft for the red ring. ******, I had to pay 200 for a new Xbox.

 

[Mister J]

No they don't. Our legal system, thankfully, allows ******** stupid cases to be heard and most likely dismissed. The purpose of this case I suspect has less to do with winning and more to do with gaining public attention to Nintendo's practices.

The dockets are already backlogged with cases that actually have merit. This type of stupidity does nothing but exacerbate the matter, eventual dismissal or not. A courtroom isn't the place for some jackass to di the equivalent of preaching from a soapbox, whining about what troubles him with no true hope for a remedy.

Numerous (practically all) jurisdictions have professional responsibility standards that preclude a member of the Bar from bringing a frivolous lawsuit or otherwise occupying the court's time with a matter where no redress is necessary. In no way am I opposed to continuing to have unorthodox, unlikely or David v. Goliath-style cases brought to attention where an actual wrong has occurred. However, some stupid **** like this, where this assclown wants to crawl into the fetal position because he can't play Call of Duty or Mario Kart any further is wholly a waste of time, money and resources. It should be discouraged and those who help perpetuate such inanity need to be scrutinized for potential professional misconduct when warranted.

There have been class action lawsuits, looking to investigate shoddy practices by Microsoft for the RROD prevalence. That's fine and an enitely different matter. An infringement on "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and cause of depression? Give me a ****ing break. This idiot and his attorney should be caned.

 

[Majic Walrus]

So, if I want to sue you for frivolous reasons, you're fine with incurring the cost of paying for a lawyer, the loss of time at work, and the stress of being sued . . . all for a "stupid" case? Or, maybe you would prefer to settle out of court--regardless of your innocence--for an amount that is less than defending yourself in court would be?

Sorry, but I think we need to adopt a "loser pays" system for lawsuits at a minimum.

In many cases like this the defendant can counter sue for just that reason. If I decide or Microsoft decides to settle out of court that's their choice.

The dockets are already backlogged with cases that actually have merit. This type of stupidity does nothing but exacerbate the matter, eventual dismissal or not. A courtroom isn't the place for some jackass to di the equivalent of preaching from a soapbox, whining about what troubles him with no true hope for a remedy.

Numerous (practically all) jurisdictions have professional responsibility standards that preclude a member of the Bar from bringing a frivolous lawsuit or otherwise occupying the court's time with a matter where no redress is necessary. In no way am I opposed to continuing to have unorthodox, unlikely or David v. Goliath-style cases brought to attention where an actual wrong has occurred. However, some stupid **** like this, where this assclown wants to crawl into the fetal position because he can't play Call of Duty or Mario Kart any further is wholly a waste of time, money and resources. It should be discouraged and those who help perpetuate such inanity need to be scrutinized for potential professional misconduct when warranted.

There have been class action lawsuits, looking to investigate shoddy practices by Microsoft for the RROD prevalence. That's fine and an enitely different matter. An infringement on "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and cause of depression? Give me a ****ing break. This idiot and his attorney should be caned.

So how do you determine what is frivolous? I think the best way would be by going through a trial process and letting a judge decide.