Pokemon Go... any thoughts?

[The Penguin]

There something I don't understand people will pay money to get accounts to reach a certain level? What the point paying someone to beat parts of a game for you? Maybe is so the person can brag to their friends they reach a certain point of a game even though it all false.

 

[Manuheleku]

There something I don't understand people will pay money to get accounts to reach a certain level? What the point paying someone to beat parts of a game for you? Maybe is so the person can brag to their friends they reach a certain point of a game even though it all false.

Yeah, they do that with Clash of Clans too. They sell leveled up villages on Ebay. What's the point?

 

[Mr Allen]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...urt-in-trespassing-case-over-backyard-monster

The first lawsuit over Pokemon Go is headed to court. A New Jersey man is suing Niantic and Nintendo because Pokemon appeared in his back yard leading to unwanted people in his back yard.

The guy has no chance, any Judge worth his Wig should throw out the case and fine him for wasting their time, I definitely would.

 

[Judge]

The guy has no chance, any Judge worth his Wig should throw out the case and fine him for wasting their time, I definitely would.

I honestly don't know. In American civil courts we appear as a nation to be at a turning point regarding certain issues like products and premises liability, as well as liability for completed operations. Unlike Europe or other parts of the world, litigation is much easier to recoup perceived losses, even if they don't appear to be truly justified.

Litigants have sued tobacco companies and won. And now there are litigants who have filed suit against gun manufacturers over murdered children. The types of civil suits that seem to have blurred where personal responsibility ends and product liability begins. If the court recognizes the traditional responsibilities of a property owner, then this suit may be groundless. But with so many other litigious precedents to the contrary, it's not so easy to predict their outcome, IMO.

Personally I'd hate to see any court protect an adult from a perceived attractive nuisance. That I find preposterous. But if the court focuses only on the injury or death of children, it becomes a very different matter. Clearly the game itself does create a potential form of attractive nuisance. So it's up to the court to decide if liability is to be shared or not between the manufacturer and their users, and property owners.

 

[The Penguin]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...urt-in-trespassing-case-over-backyard-monster

The first lawsuit over Pokemon Go is headed to court. A New Jersey man is suing Niantic and Nintendo because Pokemon appeared in his back yard leading to unwanted people in his back yard.

An attack dog will resolve this problem.

Like Mr Burns would say "Release 'A' hound!"

 

[Xenocity]

I honestly don't know. In American civil courts we appear as a nation to be at a turning point regarding certain issues like products and premises liability, as well as liability for completed operations. Unlike Europe or other parts of the world, litigation is much easier to recoup perceived losses, even if they don't appear to be truly justified.

Litigants have sued tobacco companies and won. And now there are litigants who have filed suit against gun manufacturers over murdered children. The types of civil suits that seem to have blurred where personal responsibility ends and product liability begins. If the court recognizes the traditional responsibilities of a property owner, then this suit may be groundless. But with so many other litigious precedents to the contrary, it's not so easy to predict their outcome, IMO.

Personally I'd hate to see any court protect an adult from a perceived attractive nuisance. That I find preposterous. But if the court focuses only on the injury or death of children, it becomes a very different matter. Clearly the game itself does create a potential form of attractive nuisance. So it's up to the court to decide if liability is to be shared or not between the manufacturer and their users, and property owners.

Don't compare this to Tobacco and Guns and other industries.
Big Tobacco was sued by the 50 states and the individuals for purposely hiding and actively misleading the public about the dangers of Tobacco.
Big Tobacco also lied about the chemicals they were putting in tobacco to make it more addictive and "better". These chemicals have been found to increase the cancer rate and lead to other health issues in both smokers and non smokers.

It was set of whistle blowers from within the tobacco companies, who released in the information to the government about what Big Tobacco was doing.

Gun manufacturers have actively "enticed" and "encouraged" gun shops and gun owners to subvert gun regulations.
Add this to their NRA activities, then Gun manufacturers are guilty.
Many people who have committed mass shootings and crimes with guns, obtained the guns from gun shops and other sellers illegally, by subverting the gun check process.

Gun manufacturers and the NRA have actively encouraged gun use in most situations.

Though Gun manufacturers like big Pharma are protected from most civil and criminal liabilities.
It is very hard to sue a Gun manufacturers under federal law, just like it is to sue big pharma.

Big Oil is now facing litigation from many states and countries because a set of whistle blowers released the data showing that Exxon and the like were purposely falsifying the emissions data and environmental data. They also were caught lying to government regulators and falsifying science on global warming.

The legal principle is a company must account for all reasonable usages and effects of the consumer has with the product.
This legal principle is used in every developed country in the world and in most of the world.

The EU is investigating Apple over:

1. iPhone being a conduit for pedophiles and Apple not doing enough to prevent it
2. Apple tying it's OSs to its hardware and whether that is legal
3. Apple not doing enough to protect consumers on the iOS app store from being taken advantage of by F2P and other apps

EU is also going after Microsoft over Windows 10 (free version).

Right now Microsoft is fighting a few suits in U.S. Court over forcing consumers to upgrade to Windows 10 (free).

As for Nintendo they were forced to compensate users who damaged their property while using Wii motion controls.
They also had to compensate anyone who had health issues from playing Wii.
This was enforced in U.S., Canada, EU, UK, Japan and South Korea.

They also had to shutdown Swapnote on 3DS, because pedophiles used Swapnote to trade X-rated pictures with children around the world. Nintendo was forced to shut it down and issue a detailed public statement in each territory.

Nintendo is constantly getting hell from government regulators and parental groups over not doing enough to protect kids on their products because they make family friendly entertainment (Sony and Microsoft are exempt from it).

Whether or not the person in question can meet the legal requirements to sue over Pokemon Go is a different story.
Though many U.S. states are readying bills related to Pokemon Go to protect children.
NY just signed their Pokemon Go law into effect banning those on the sex offenders list from using it.

 

[Judge]

Don't compare this to Tobacco and Guns and other industries.

Let me further elaborate on the context of my previous statement. Of course products liability concerns vary depending on the product. Guns, tobacco and entertainment software all have different issues relative to products liability. What I'm getting at is twofold. The evolution of products liability relative to a consumer-oriented society and even more importantly how consistent civil jurors deliberate (in certain jurisdictions) with regards to settlements and damages with such lawsuits. Regardless of the product in question.

Last year a gun retailer was found liable for a straw purchase of a gun used in a homicide. Tobacco continues to be on the defensive in civil courts. And most of all, the cost of liability insurance in general isn't trending downward. Prior to such decisions, most of us would probably scoff at this suit to hold a software manufacturer liable for what really amounts to a property owner's premises liability IMO.

If such a case is adjudicated to a jury and not settled behind closed doors, it becomes largely a matter of a waging a compelling case without strict rules of evidence required in criminal courts. Then factor in more litigious plaintiffs are found on both the east and west coasts compared to the "Heartland" or the South. Having underwritten personal and business liability for a major insurer for nearly two decades, you learn from a lot of company-sponsored research in just how skewed the perception of civil jurors can be when rationalizing a settlement and damages at deliberation. It was always a concern when the company contemplated going to court and throwing the dice with most any jury in California. While the court is obligated to make a juror's perception neutral and pertinent only to case adjudicated, it's nearly impossible to erase their frame of reference when it comes to earlier and well-publicized cases of products liability. Worse still, are those who rationalize that if a defendant is adequately insured, it hurts no one to award a settlement paid for by insurers. Sound preposterous? It happens all the time with much greater frequency on both coasts ultimately costing most everyone in ever higher liability premiums.

It really doesn't matter what we argue over what precedents should or should not be compared to. It's generally out of everyone's hands once a civil jury begins deliberating behind closed doors unless a defendant chooses to settle or the jury requests additional guidance from the presiding judge. All exacerbated by 24 hour news broadcasts and the Internet to further bias and pollute the next jury pool.

As for the EU, IMO sometimes they seem more focused on outright revenue gathering from foreign multinationals to bolster their weak economy than masquerade as a judicial body for consumer protection.

 

[Xenocity]

Actually in most states and in U.S. Federal Courts the judges have the power to nullify the damages, if they believe they're unreasonable and/or not fitting to the "crime" in question.

Also the gun store in question, didn't do background checks and subverted other gun regulation to make the sale.
They were found out to have a done this on many occasions.
The state was denied a criminal case, because the judge claimed that federal protection for arms and gun manufacturers extended to gun shops.

The judge permitted a civil suit.

Also the gun shop owners claimed the gun manufacturers were pushing them to sell as many guns as possible by any means necessary in order to keep getting shipments of guns and ammo.
They were told if they didn't meet the sales requirements, they would be cut off from further shipments.

Seriously read up what businesses have been doing that lead to these civil suits.

 

[Judge]

Actually in most states and in U.S. Federal Courts the judges have the power to nullify the damages, if they believe they're unreasonable and/or not fitting to the "crime" in question.

You're preaching to the choir. It happens from time to time, but not soon or often enough to offset earned premiums for insurers who in most cases foot the bill. The Pennzoil v Texaco case always comes to mind. Quite a setback for Texaco in a huge reduction of compensatory and punitive damages previously awarded to them.

But the reality is that judges shouldn't have to intervene like that. It just further reflects a need for comprehensive tort reform rather than let this litigious environment fester for the benefit of trial lawyers.

Too bad the rest of the country can't be more like Texas. They seem to take a rather dim view of lawsuits altogether.

 

[Xenocity]

You're preaching to the choir. It happens from time to time, but not soon or often enough to offset earned premiums for insurers who in most cases foot the bill. The Pennzoil v Texaco case always comes to mind. Quite a setback for Texaco in a huge reduction of compensatory and punitive damages previously awarded to them.

But the reality is that judges shouldn't have to intervene like that. It just further reflects a need for comprehensive tort reform rather than let this litigious environment fester for the benefit of trial lawyers.

Too bad the rest of the country can't be more like Texas. They seem to take a rather dim view of lawsuits altogether.

Texas is far worse than most of the states.
Everyone knows Eastern Texas district is the place to go to file a patent and/or copyright/trademark suits and other business suits.
Businesses love the speed and low bar of legal requirements required to get a trial and judgement in Eastern Texas.

Eastern Texas gets the more business suits than the rest of the federal courts (possibly combined). \
Getting rid or cleaning up Eastern Texas district would literally get rid of 25%+ of all cases against companies, it would get rid of the majority of patent and copyright/trademark suits, and it would get rid of the majority of lawsuits against foreign companies operating in the U.S.

Eastern Texas is the hell hole in the U.S. Court system.

According to U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Texas is 40th out of 50 when it comes to torts and legal system.
This is a horrible ranking, which is down from 36.
The worst and most active U.S. District according to the study (2015) was Eastern Texas.
Cook County was second to it, because of Chicago.
Delware is #1 (the best).
http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/states

They reformed the system to it's current form, because companies were abusing consumers and citizens.
They made it easier to for consumers and citizens to sue, so companies would be held accountable.

Essentially if you get reform Texas and most of the South, you'd fix the system.
The rest of the country is relatively normal and not as sue happy as the South and Texas.

 

[Judge]

Texas is far worse than most of the states.
Everyone knows Eastern Texas district is the place to go to file a patent and/or copyright/trademark suits and other business suits.
Businesses love the speed and low bar of legal requirements required to get a trial and judgement in Eastern Texas.

Eastern Texas gets the more business suits than the rest of the federal courts (possibly combined). \
Getting rid or cleaning up Eastern Texas district would literally get rid of 25%+ of all cases against companies, it would get rid of the majority of patent and copyright/trademark suits, and it would get rid of the majority of lawsuits against foreign companies operating in the U.S.

Eastern Texas is the hell hole in the U.S. Court system.

According to U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Texas is 40th out of 50 when it comes to torts and legal system.
This is a horrible ranking, which is down from 36.
The worst and most active U.S. District according to the study (2015) was Eastern Texas.
Cook County was second to it, because of Chicago.
Delware is #1 (the best).
http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/states

They reformed the system to it's current form, because companies were abusing consumers and citizens.
They made it easier to for consumers and citizens to sue, so companies would be held accountable.

Essentially if you get reform Texas and most of the South, you'd fix the system.
The rest of the country is relatively normal and not as sue happy as the South and Texas.

This suit isn't about patents, copyrights or trademark infringement. It's misleading to quote a source citing litigation ranked only from the perception and scope of businesses rather than taxpayers or consumers and aggregate settlements and damages. That's opinion- not fact. Besides, litigation and tort reform is for everyone- not merely business owners or any chamber of commerce. Not to mention that any "business" interpretation of litigation state-by-state is likely to include the feedback of law offices, which inherently reduces the objectivity of such a claim.

The main issue is trespassing of users of a software program. An eclectic combination of premises liability and products liability allegations. Yet somehow I don't see such a plaintiff getting a comprehensive "free pass" over their own basic responsibilities as a property owner. Even in the case of injured trespasser. It seems to me such a strategy would make more sense if aimed only at minors using such software where the doctrine of attractive nuisance might play into such a suit to some degree. But holding a software manufacturer completely liable for trespassing adult users seems a pretty weak proposition IMO.

But then Texas and certain other states are nothing compared to New York or California for a suit like this one. Politically at least Texas tries to pursue tort reform where on the coasts it seems as if trial lawyers have buried the concept altogether. It's why the company I once worked for usually would jump at the chance to settle out of court. And when they didn't, they got reamed in court no matter how good their case seemed. Reminds me of a traffic accident where we could have settled for $150,000. But the home office wanted to settle in court based on the circumstances. The company ultimately wrote a check for ten times the amount once the jury deliberated a settlement.

However this one is in New Jersey....and I don't see them throwing out this filing. We shall see though. It still looks like an uphill battle for the plaintiffs. Of course if they settle out of court, we'll may never know what was agreed to.

 

[Judge]

Well, the Pokemon Go craze has crossed the line with me today. This afternoon I was riding the elevator at work with some yutz that had his device out. I figured he was texting or something. As we stopped at my floor, he literally shoved me to the side and rushed off holding his device up as he chased Pokemon (or whatever the heck it is) down the hall. That is no reason to be rude and uncivilized. Had I not been at work, I would have handed him his head.

For crying out loud people, it is just a freaking game and the characters are NOT REAL. Unless there's a pot of gold at the end that will put food on the table, the book with all knowledge, or a plan for total world peace, then grow up, set the device aside, and act like civilized human beings.

Here endeth my rant.

It is bizarre. But then I see people with their faces buried in their handheld devices crossing streets, in parking lots and elsewhere oblivious to what's happening around them. Whether they're playing a game or surfing the net. Meanwhile operators of motor vehicles continue to use them while driving even though it now carries a heavy fine here. Technology gone wild- and anti-social in the process! A dystopian future that has arrived rather than merely be in a theater near you.

Go figure.

But what happened to you...that could get ugly happening here...lots of CCWs. Rudeness can be dangerous.

 

[Judge]

Is reality so bad that some people have to escape into fantasy? What will they do when the fantasy ends and they have to reenter reality?

Good point. There's a whole lotta people out there trying to escape reality any way they can.

Yet for myself personally, it's an alien concept. I just try to deal with reality as best I can, knowing that ultimately I can't really run away from it for very long. Not to mention that I don't want to put anyone elses life in jeopardy just to play a video game in public.

 

[Judge]

Same here. I suppose that since my life has been such a nightmare that I prefer reality over fantasy.

Yep. What a long, strange trip it's been. No cakewalk, for sure.

 

[Xenocity]

However this one is in New Jersey....and I don't see them throwing out this filing. We shall see though. It still looks like an uphill battle for the plaintiffs. Of course if they settle out of court, we'll may never know what was agreed to.

If Apple can be held legally liable over people and children racking up bills on In App Purchases (IAPs) and Microsoft for "forcing" free Widows 10 upgrades, then anything is possible.
Both are forced to go court in the EU, UK, U.S., Japan, South Korea, Brazil etc...
Apple was forced to introduce parental controls and other changes to make it harder to do IAPs (it hasn't changed the negative public perception).
EU is set to rule on whether or not Apple does enough to inform customers regarding IAPs and preventing children from making accidental purchases.

Someone already won a big payout over the Windows 10 free upgrade in the U.S., because of how Microsoft went about it.

Due to the nature of the suit, it is going FEDERAL thus Federal law is in play not NJ law.

Nintendo has lost a far worse suit than this in the U.S.
In 2004, parents sued Nintendo because their son who had a history of seizures, had a seizure from playing a Nintendo game on his then Gamecube.

The U.S. judge agreed that Nintendo did not go far enough with warning people about the seizure and health effects from playing video games.
At the time Nintendo only put the seizure and health warnings on the back of the box and in the instruction manuals (the other platforms still do this.)

As part of the judgement, Nintendo had to put the unskipable health and seizure warning at boot up of DS and Wii, and on the front of all future product boxes. They also had to pay out over $100M over it.
They lost the appeal.
Their current systems 3DS and Wii U have you agree to that you read the health warnings when you set them up for the first time. Also game boxes still feature the warnings on the front and back.
Some games feature warnings at boot up.

So far Sony, Microsoft and PCs haven't had to deal with it yet.

On the other hand I did evolve a 544 CP Eevee to a 1440 Vaporeon

 

[Judge]

If Apple can be held legally liable over people and children racking up bills on In App Purchases (IAPs) and Microsoft for "forcing" free Widows 10 upgrades, then anything is possible.
Both are forced to go court in the EU, UK, U.S., Japan, South Korea, Brazil etc...

With the EU they're after most of the big multinationals. Nothing like making a deal on a national level only to have the EU courts come back after the fact and want more money. No telling what they'll extort from Apple given their net worth. Starbucks had to go through a similar process, but it involved a much lesser amount of money. I see it as more a form of corporate extortion than actual civil justice. But yeah, in this faltering global economic environment anything is possible. Every government is scrambling to squeeze "creative revenue" any way they can from anyone who can afford to pay. And of course the companies inevitably pass on their cost to consumers anyways.

It never ends. I suppose the one thing that's worse than litigious plaintiffs are greedy governments anxious to skim off the top of business deals negotiated long after the fact. Citing them as "illegal tax deals". Of course such practices by the EU court seems to be roiling individual nations like the Netherlands...and possibly contributing to a contagion of their own "Brexit" in the future.

 

[Xenocity]

With the EU they're after most of the big multinationals. Nothing like making a deal on a national level only to have the EU courts come back after the fact and want more money. No telling what they'll extort from Apple given their net worth. Starbucks had to go through a similar process, but it involved a much lesser amount of money. I see it as more a form of corporate extortion than actual civil justice. But yeah, in this faltering global economic environment anything is possible. Every government is scrambling to squeeze "creative revenue" any way they can from anyone who can afford to pay. And of course the companies inevitably pass on their cost to consumers anyways.

It never ends. I suppose the one thing that's worse than litigious plaintiffs are greedy governments anxious to skim off the top of business deals negotiated long after the fact. Of course such practices by the EU court seems to be roiling individual nations like the Netherlands...and possibly contributing to a contagion of their own "Brexit" in the future.

Actually it was brought about by EU citizens filing the suit with the EU regulators complaining that Apple was actively encouraging children to spend money on IAPs. Many citizens also stated Apple didn't afford them protections against companies pursing IAPs.

It's not just EU that's after Apple.
UK is going after them for not protecting consumers on the app store from aggressive app developers who use psychiatrists to help them make their apps addictive.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the Consumer protection agency are both going after Apple for not safeguarding consumers and children on the App store.
They are also pursuing antitrust litigation against Apple over the App store.
Many states are also taking Apple to court over the App Store and what developers are doing on iOS.
Canada, Japan, Australia, and China are also pursuing legal action against Apple over the App store and the lack of protections for children and consumers.

Apple as the distributor, platform holder, agent and merchant (they are all 4 when operating the App store) assumes most of the legal liabilities from the app developers.

This is one of the main reasons why iOS is the primary Mobile OS for developers.

Apple is negligent and complacent with how app developers use the app store is less than honest ways.
Apple was ignorant and underestimated to what extent some app developers would do to consumers and children.
It doesn't help that those app developers including King marketed heavily on the App store and iTunes, while also marketing on other channels too.

Since Google doesn't actively control the Google Play Store and doesn't have full control of Android, Google is not held legally liable in most cases for what app developers do on Android.
You don't have to use Google Play Store for App distribution and installation.

None of this has to do with government and/or consumer greed. It horrible and most likely illegal practices by app developers, which Apple is party to for the way it controls iOS and the App Store.

Believe it or not companies can make bad decisions and purposely do shady things to make profit.

When you actively market and position a product as Niantic/Nintendo/TPCi did with Pokemon Go, you can face legalities.
They are marketing Pokemon Go as going out into the world to find Pokemon.
They encouraged people to go places... They made the faulty mistake by not adding a "no playing while driving" and "no trespassing" warning/disclaimer
Though the new update from the other day added both warnings/disclaimers, but it's too late to avoid lawsuits.

Since they went a month without those warnings, they opened themselves up in every country where the app is officially available, to lawsuits based on the consumers action.
They can be held legally responsible for their consumers behaviors while using the app prior to the update.
Everyone who downloaded the app for the first time after the update are personally responsible for their own behavior.

It's up to the judge to determine whether or not they met the legally requirements of consumer protection.

 

[Judge]

It's not just EU that's after Apple.

No, I'm not talking about conventional product suits, competitor and consumer issues and practices in this instance. But yeah, there's a lot to those issues you've itemized in your posts. Admittedly I got sidetracked on another issue. A series of suits brought about by the EU Court to allegedly recover "lost taxes" not accounted for between individual European nations like the Netherlands, and various multinational corporations like Starbucks. Of course they've done the same to Fiat as well.

But it strikes me as a blatant attempt to generate more revenue than justify any perceived civil wrong. That the EU simply wants their "pound of flesh" because they need it. The thing is, the EU courts are effectively interfering with individual nations' commerce agreements after the fact. Apple is yet another company on their "hit list" in this particular instance. A good reason for individual nations to rethink being in a heavy-handed federation that undermines commerce in such a way. It's one thing to have a legitimate grievance against a company as a consumer or a competitor. But this strikes me as simply an attempt to extort money from business agreements negotiated long before the scrutiny of the EU. It just seems fundamentally underhanded even though everyone knows the EU is struggling with revenue issues as is most every other sovereign entity.

 

[Manuheleku]

Did someone say Pokémon? [emoji3]

 

[Mr Allen]

My game hasn't worked all day, apparently the servers are overloaded.