Virtual Land, Real Court, Real Money

Wired is reporting on what may be a first: a real world court appearance over a virtual land claim. From the article: "The attorney, Marc Bragg of West Chester, Pennsylvania, says game developer Linden Lab unilaterally shut down his Second Life account, cutting off his access to a substantial portfolio of real estate and currency in the virtual world. He's demanding $8,000 in restitution. Bragg claims Linden Lab froze his account after a land deal went bad. The attorney said he found a legitimate way to purchase land at prices far below market rates, using an online auction on the Second Life website."

Comments

So let me get this straight..

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy exploits a bug, gets his account shut out, and is expecting money?

"Without merit" indeed.

Re:He is pretty screwed

[erroneus]

Use an exploit in the real world and they don't shut down any accounts, they shut down your LIFE. You don't have the right to sue for damages or loses while you're in prison either. He should consider himself lucky he isn't being criminally prosecuted for electronic fraud or something like that.

Re:No Surprise.

[iocat]

Yeah, but where you lose the case is where you took the price tag off in the first place. Whether the cashier is a moron on not, if you actively participate in the confusion, you're wrong.

Linden may be morons for making their auction system easy to exploit, but in the same way companies aren't liable for misprints in ad fliers, and companies can cancel obviously broken sales (like when an airline website accidently sells flights for $.02; the airline can cancel those sales, though usually they don't for PR reasons), Linden isn't obligated to honor a contract which the guy games the system to secure.

Know the facts for the McDonald's coffee case

[ChaosDiscord]

A lady exploits her use of the cup holder, spills a McDonald's hot coffee on her lap, and is expecting money?

Bad example. Are you really familiar with the details of case or just the strawman version popular among those in favor of tort reform? McDonald's sold the woman a beverage that, by their own admission is "not fit for consumption" when handed it to a customer. They sold their coffee far hotter than just about anyone else. They had been repeatedly warned about their coffee and serious burns had happened before. This wasn't a woman dangerously mixing drinking coffee and driving; she was a passenger in the vehicle in question. The woman originally contacted McDonald's and only asked for McDonald's to cover her medical expenses. Only when McDonald's refuse did she turn to a lawsuit. Even then she asked for a relatively small amount of money (on the order of $200,000; a reasonable amount considering she had many thousands of dollars of medical bills and now a lawyer's bills). The rest of the judgement was punitive damages assigned by the jury when they learned that how negligent McDonald's was. This wasn't someone greedily trying to get free money. This was a 79-year-old woman trying to cope with sudden large medical bills because McDonald's had sold her a dangerously hot beverage.

A good summary of the facts of the case.