Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Sued Over Pokemon Gambling Addiction
Brain00666 writes "Two parents and their kids are suing Nintendo, claiming that their Pokemon cards "are turning them into pint-sized gamblers." Apparently they're asserting that they were "forced" to spend thousands of dollars to get rare cards." If they win,
I'm totally going after Wizards of the Coast ;)
Personally, I was thinking in Kelvin for some reason when I read it.
Pikachu? Pika!
You're complaining about McDonald's? And you don't think the number of burn reports is statistically insignificant? Let's see, 700 reports over 10 years works out to an average of 70 reports/year. Compare that to ~1,000,000,000 cups sold/year. That's 7 reports for every ONE HUNDRED MILLION cups of coffee. Yes, I think that number is statistically insignificant. "Despite knowledge of the hazard", indeed. I think you're statistically more likely to get hit by a car on the way to the McDonald's than you are to get scalded by their coffee, if the numbers you cite are to be believed.
This is complete bullshit! How the fuck can they sue Nintendo for that! Card companies have been doing that for years. i think the parents need to be beaten down for stupidity!!!!! If ur kid comes home asking for $100 for a damn card u just say, HELL NO!!! plus there is no way they have a case at all. what a bunch of dumb asses! Later, Nuc|earWinter
With all their damn stamps subsidizing the fat pensions of postal workers and padding the profits of this government agency all the while they keep raising the damn rate for 1st class mail every couple of years.
Well, don't rule out that there isn't a legal case to be made in all cases- that's silly. Stupid lawsuits like this are the price we pay so that when people do have a legitimate beef, but its through an unusual theory, they actually can get some redress. The beauty of gambling is that each individual transaction is economically fair, but as a social institution it is LITERALLY simply a means to transfer large sums of money from one group of people to another, for nothing in return (unless you count the fun of gambling). Because the "fun of gambling" is such a vague product, it's far too easy for gambling companies to manipulate their customers, and the government really does have a legal interest in regulating it. If companies often misrepresent the odds, and most get away with it. Besides, just because something is okay according to market principles doesn't make it good as a social policy. Look at the stock market vs lotteries. Poor people most often play lotto, whereas only rich people can really play in the stock market, because the more money you have the longer it takes to break you. But the stock market is (arguably) a positive sum game, meaning that anyone who DOESN'T play is losing out, relatively, while the lottery is a negative sum game, meaning that the vast majority of the players are simply losing money. There is a case to be made here that this is a socially unfair state of affairs, even if everyone "freely" chooses to play any given game.
first: what are fourth graders doing with
thousands of dollars?
He and fellow fourth-grader Andrew said they spent thousands of dollars trying to get the scarce cards that are a big status symbol with their friends.
Second: How is this different than Baseball cards,
Majic the Gathering, etc.
this is a shame... john
Wasnt this suit allready dropped?
>Anybody else remember the lady who sued
>McDonald's over their coffee?
Sure do. Condensed version: McDonalds serves 190F degree coffee even though their customers don't like it that hot and they've already had several complaints of burns, because they can make it cheaper and faster that way. Lady buys a cup, puts it in her lap without opening the lid. Coffee burns right through the plastic cup before the driver leaves the window(lady was in the passenger seat) and gives the lady third-degree burns. Lady spends week in the hospital getting skin grafts, medical bills mount up to over $50,000US. Lady politely asks McDonalds to help pay for the medical bills, McDonalds refuses to speak with her. After repeated attempts to get some sort of settlement, lady hires a lawyer. Lady sues, wins. Jury finds McDonalds tactics so unethical they order the company to pay several million in punitive(read puni-punish) damages. Judge reduces several million to several hundred thousand. McDonalds suddenly finds that it is no longer profitable to unnecessarily risk the health of their consumers(say what you'd like about their food), ends the practice. Newspapers make up a story about a lady driving away with an open cup of mildly hot coffee. CrayDrygu reads the news story, makes completely uninformed post to slashdot.
I can't wait until they get on Larry King or Rivera or some other talk show and get ripped to shreds. This is dumb enough to get ridiculed heavily by the mainstream press.
>I should start a drinking game!
If they parrot the crap the news put out, make 'em drink 1 sip of 200 degree coffee
If they think the lady asked for the $millions the jury awarded in ***punitive*** damages, make 'em drink 2 sips of 200 degree coffee
If they think the coffee was cold enough that they could drink it without getting Hurt[tm], shove a whole cup of 200 degree coffee down their gullet.
Any more?
-Perpetual Newbie
Strangly enough this guy has a point...if i got out and spend $100's of dollars on celeron 300a's hoping to get the special one that will overclock to 504Mhz. Is that gambling? They certainly are more rare than normal celerons. My point is that nintendo & WOTC didn't put values on the cards, other than the SRP of a booster pack or starter.
Ooh, ooh, I've got one! This is a true story... it was on the news, at least.
A lady went to McDonald's. She bought coffee in the drive-thru, and put it in her lap. Ignoring *ALL* warning signs of the hotness of the contents, she went on driving.
After the inevitable happened, she sued McDonald's... and WON! *sigh* So now people don't even have to be responsible enough to read the WARNING SIGNS! What does the company have to do, hire 5 guys with microphones to yell the warnings at them?
You put up a lot of money for a chance to learn something in your "MCP" course, but don't. Then they tell you you can give them even more money and you might learn something if you take the "MCP+I " course, so you pony it up and go through, and still don't learn anything. By then you're hooked, and are more than willing to spend even more money on the "MCSE" course to try and gain the "knowledge" that they promise is within....
-Perpetual Newbie
This is a joke. Laugh here.
That's a little bit different. The Federal Government gaurantees that paper money is worth what it is. Originally, the total value of all paper money in circulation was equal to the amount of gold that was stored in the Federal Reserves.
I'm suprised something like this hasn't popped up over the Beanie Baby craze...
AAAAA! Dare you defile the holiness of Pokemon! Grrr... Snorlax, go! Sit attack!
*he is squashed flat by snorlax sitting on him*
Heh, I sound just like those guys that could buy thousands of dollars of cards for one card... that MIGHT sell for $100! Oh, wait, except I have a little thing called _common sense_!
You're right, 1 rare card in every pack. However, I think the deal is with the super-mega-ultra-rare foil embossed cards.
How is this gambling?! Cards have a value! Be that value $0.20 or $20, they can be used to play a game, unlike a losing lottery ticket which has no use unless you happen to enjoy collecting losing lottery tickets.
#if SARCASM hey, lets all go sue intel for making us feel left out with our 486's and "making us buy P3's #endif /* I'm being sarcastic, don't flame me*/
I would like to sue the US government for making me attend public school for years, I would like to sue MY science & math teachers for making me fall asleep during class, but last but not least I would like to sue my penis if it weren't so demanding I could just write code and play video games instead of going out to procreate.... what do you say folks? I say we sue god for giving us genetalia!
When I was little I spent a lot of money on Garbage Pail Kids cards, buying more and more so I could match the pairs. It's all been downhill since then..
Arg!! I am seeing a lot of people implying that buying CCG cards is like Gambling! This is not the case AT ALL. First of all in ANY game such as the lottery You win 5$ You can go to the store and trade it in for that amount. I buy a pack of pokemon cards and get the one worth 10$ No promise whatsoever by anyone on the planet that I am going to get 10$ for it. It is only worth what people will pay for it! Which could be nothing by the time the next cool card game comes out. Baseball cards anyone!? Heh Get over it and dont let your kids run your family sheesh. They are fun but in the 4th grade you shouldnt care so much about a card being worth 100$. Ugh I see big companies A Little at fault for this but its good business for them to make certain cards very rare. Perhaps not this rare however. It is asanine if your target audience cannot afford to play the game the way it was meant to be played. that is BAD business. So really these lawyers dont have a prayer in the world of winning since the suit is for all the wrong reasons.!
The lady that sued VISA over the "illegal" gambling dept,actually won, sorry
Well, then *PARENTS* need to say, "no".
If someone digs a hole and you break your leg jumping into it, you might as well try sueing them - you'd get away with it here (Australia)
Since when do fourth graders have thousands of dollars to spend on Pokemon cards? They spent thousands and their parents never thought this was weird? How much of an allowance could they possibly have? Did they have their own internet start up or where they whoring out their little sisters? Man, that's some crazy $hit! THOUSANDS????
Pokemon packs have a rare card in EVERY pack. Some just happen to be thought of as better than others by certain kids. However, since WoTC openly states that each pack contains 1 rare card randomly chosen from a pool of rare cards, the suit is baseless. You get a rare card regardless, they all have the same print run, so they all have the same inherent value. Any other value is assigned by the players themselves, NOT the manufacturer. The children are the ones who are at fault here, they are the ones who attach any monetary value beyond the base value of the card (2.99 per pack, 11 cards a pack, makes that roughly 28 cents per card). And just who forced these children to play Pokemon? Nobody. They play voluntarily. Period. supabeast! at work
I think I might sue the government for forcing me to work to earn money. It such a gamble depending on how hard I work or which job I happen to get I receive various amounts of this addictive money.
If only I could afford ****, well if I work for another week. I can.
If thats not addictive and gambling then I don't know what is
Pokemon! Getto da ze! Dadadadadadadada! Dadadadum! Tatoe hi no naka mizu no naka kusa no naka mori no naka! Tsuchi no naka kumo no naka ano ko no sukaato no naka! Nakanaka nakanaka, nakanaka nakanaka taihen dakedo! Kanarazu- Getto da ze! Pokemon- Getto da zeeeeeeeeeeeee! Masara Taun ni sayonara baibai! Ore wa koitsu to tabi ni deru (Pikachuu!) Kitaeta waza de kachi makuri Nakama o fuyashite tsugi no machi he Itsumo itsudemo umaku yuku nante Hoshou wa doko ni monai kedo Itsudemo itsumo honki de ikiteru Koitsu-tachi ga iruuuuuu! (Pikachuu! Pikachuu! Pikapika Pikachuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!) Dadada! Aa akogare no Pokemon Masutaa ni Naritai na nara naku cha Zettai natte yaru! (Natte yaru!) Dadadadadadadadum! Dadadadum! Dada!
All the things I mention here actually occur in the Pokemon anime. 1) Kasumi slapping Satoshi 2) They fight 3) Kojirou cross-dressing 4) #18 (banned in America): Kojirou's fake breasts! 5) #35 (also banned in America): Satoshi and Roketto Dan with guns pointed at them and a long scene of Roketto Dan getting shot 6) #38 (banned in America AND Japan): The infamous seizure episode 7) #68: Fushigidane gets high 8) Myuutsuu no Gyakushuu: Plenty of violence and death and cool stuff like that including Satoshi's death 9) #23: Satoshi AND Pikachuu die and become ghosts
It bugs me, what can I say?
Pikachuu going under a girl's skirt in the theme song...
Plus $20 can be exchanged for goods and services. Try getting a meal from a pokemon card at your local restaurant... Hope you enjoy dishwashing!
Does installing Windows count as gambling, and not hard work then? I figure since you have a 1 in 10 chance of a good installation, you'd be gambling. Therefore, Windows should ONLY be sold to those over the age of 18, or the age of majority in your locale should that be higher. ;-)
Un*x on the other hand should be sold to everyone, since there is no luck involved in its succesful installation...
Note: The following is not a flame, just trying to be informative in a funny way...
:-)
But water boils at 200 degrees celsius! This would only leave coffee grounds (or in the case of McDonalds coffee, soap and black goopy tar [not from experience, I'm not a coffee drinker]).
Note: Yeah, I know there's many temperature systems, I just wish slashdotters would notice that most of us on planet earth use Celsius (ie. Were not from the US). That makes it standard. So if you wanna use Farenheit, remember to mention it.
No No no. You've got things all mixed up. A Goomba isn't a mushroom, it's those little things that attack you that look sort of like little frogs. (See the first creature that you encounter in Super Mario Bros., World 1-1) Bowser was the Boss at the end of the game. King Koopa was the name of the Bowser looking thing in the Super Mario TV show, but Koopa was never a boss in Super Mario.
Going after nintendo probably won't get you very far.....Wizards of the coast are the ones who make them.
umm, haven't baseball cards been packaged with randomly more intrinsically valuable cards just like Magic cards and these Pokemon cards? Same thing, publish them en masse, and the value goes down. If the ball player decides to suck, the value goes down. Kids have been gambling like this for decades.
Their clients should sue for incompetence
goomba = mushroom
:)
koopa = turtle/duck things
you've mixed your terms.
Wow, what a wonderful parent you would make. I don't approve of what this woman is doing, but the way you put it says "My kid smokes crack, but hell, he buys it with his own money. Let him do what he wants with it."
From what I can recall about that suit, it's the same law firm that is currently suing Nintendo. As for me, I'll be calling them on Monday for my Cracker Jack lawsuit. The box *clearly* says "Prize inside!" and all I got was some crummy tattoo.
Theoretically a $20 bill is guaranteed by the United States Treasury to be worth $20. If it's badly damaged but still recognizeable as a $20 bill you could exchange it for a new one. Bet you won't get the same deal from Nintendo.
Were not trying to imply that your are stupid. Those warnings are there for those that are...Although I would hope that nobody is really dumb enough to use a hair drier while taking shower.
Are you serious? To accumulate "several thousand dollars" they'd have to save a dollar for every day of their life since they were born.
Kids probably cant, thats why they have parents. There is no reason at all the parents couldnt have stoped all this. As for saving there money, most that money they spent was from the parents. All they have to do is say no.
Just because someone files a lawsuit doesn't mean it has merit. Anyone can sue for anything. Most of these lawsuits are dismissed right away. I don't doubt that this one will be as well. When one of these kooks actually wins a lawsuit like this, then come talk to me.
Isn't this slashdot? I don't want to read about stupid PokeMon!!!!!!!!!!!
More computer/tech stuff please
Wow! All I can say is opportunists at their best.
wow cant wait for the kids to win then i can sue the makers of the beanie babies for forcing me to spend hundreds of dollars to collect rare no longer made beanie babies yea right like they forced me i'm a humanbeing with a mind of my own not a robot nobody forces me todo anything i dont WANT todo,next then I'll sue baseball card makers all of them I spent thousands buying rare rookie cards. This is a joke no court in their right mind would rule against nintendo in this so called case.
The McDonald's case is interesting.
The coffee, maintained at a scalding 180F-190F because the customers supposedly "like it hot", caused severe third-degree burns. She spent seven days in the hospital and was treated with skin grafts.
Initially she only wanted payment for her medical bills but McDonald's refused to even negotiate with her. Consequently she contacted an attorney who had settled another coffee burn case with McDonald's. In the course of the trial company documents revealed that "in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third-degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."
Despite knowledge of the hazard, company officials refused to warn its customers. "There are more serious dangers in restaurants." And given the 1 billion cups of coffee sold annually, McDonald's considered the number of burn complaints to be "statistically insignificant".
After hearing such testimony a jury found McDonald's liable and awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages. The jurors deducted $40,000 for contributory negligence. Also, given McDonald's conduct, the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was equal to 2 days of coffee sales.
Later the judge reduced the punitive award to $480,000. While awaiting appeal the two parties settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.
The #1 sickening thing about the whole McDonald's coffee hype is how it distracts from the facts. I suppose you just glibly believed whatever it was the mass media told you about that McDonald's case didn't you?
Why oh why couldn't there be a law allowing us to institutionalize people like this? Or better yet why don't we just create a soviet style labor camp in Alaska for the stupid lawyers and plantifs that make up these cases. *Even better* why don't we swap their assets with the illegal immigrants pooring over the boarder each day that will actually do hard work and make *THEM* work in the fields for slave wages. (I was being mostly sarcastic, but something seriously needs to be done about these people)
Ya'll promote Linux, code for Linux and HELL even give it away for free, I Am announcing that IA m sueing the entire open source community. There is an addictive quality to Linux and you got me off track for my MCSE and wasted countless hours of my life messing with this Linux, might as well be a drug..freaks all of you!!! :P
I should start a drinking game!
The lawsuit is not about collectible trading, but rather the because the original purchases are a game of chance.
It is a game of chance because you buy a card (ticket) without knowing which one you are buying. It is a little like baseball cards that come in the bubblegum packs, but there you get bubblegum. It is more like buying a scratch-and-win lottery ticket.
Another (this time fake) story:
A person (lets call him George, although we'll never see the name mentioned again) buys a gun at a store called 'Buy ready to use, no intervention required, weapons here'. Not a big gun, but a nice glock. He's in a rush, since the bank he wants to rob is going to close in half an hour. The gun owner sold the gun to him with the safety off and the gun fully loaded, just like the sign said. He doesn't want to lose the weapon, it's pretty important to his heist, so while driving he places it in the place where things usually don't go astray (between his legs). In a rush, he leaves the barrel pointing to his genitals. His long hair gets stuck on the trigger, and since having your hair pulled hurts, he jumps a little; causing the gun to fire and causing him to spend many thousands on cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. He had his balls blasted apart, to put it bluntly.
(*) So he asks politely at the store for the cost of the surgery back. The guy at the store says 'No. You leave now.' and goes to the back of the store and has a big laugh with his pals.
So the guy with the gun asks some lawyers to help him use the legal system to extract money from the gun shop for his surgery. He wins. For some strange twist of fate, he wins big!
A lot more serious that spilling hand grenades in your lap (ffft, yeah, right!)!
Moral of the story: If you think you can hurt yourself in a new and interesting way, you'd better do it in the US!
Now, a similar story for the hot coffee lady:
Hot coffee lady (Lets call her stupid, becuase, hey, she is) drives thru 'Fast and Ready to eat' food store and buys coffee. She's in a rush for some reason, so she puts the coffee in the only place that's going to hold it still (or so she thinks). The food store sold the coffee very hot, since it was made quickly, and was ready to drink (slowly, just like most coffee) just as the store says. She stops abruptly, since she's in a rush, for a red light that she has mistimed. The coffee spills. She gets burned. Lots of surgery, etc... Her genitals were scalded shut.
Goto (*), replace gun with food.
A lot more serious than spilling a homebrew coffee in your lap (ffft! Yeah, right!)!
BTW: If you didn't know McDonalds sold fast food, ready to eat (ie. No extra heating required), I guess you won't be replying to this (You have to have a positive IQ to be able to use a computer, don't you?).
The real moral of the story: Think before you don't. If you put batteries in your pocket and they explode due to contact with your loose change, and the fact the store sold you Ni-Cads, rather than Zinc, do you sue the store? No. You instead get the darwin award...
> Geesh, they could buy a gun on the black market with that money. they should buy the gun, shoot the other kids, and take the cards.
> This _has_ to be a joke, because if it isn't,
> then thousands of companies are left open to be
> sued over stuff like this.
It's worth it, if it lets us take down The Franklin Mint.
kill yourself!
pikachu pikachu pikachu pikachu pikachu pikachu pikachu pikachu pikachu pikachu pikachu pikachu PIKACHU!
Me. I'm still left. I'm cool, dude.
:
- dom
- gnome
What's up, Mr Jones?
I am a parent too, and I also buy some of the cards for my kid. But he is NOT addicted to it. Sure he likes to have those rare cards, but it is your responsibilty to let them know they can't have everything.
pokemon cards and crack............ hmmmmmmmm.............. anyone ever try to smoke pokemon cards.....
There can be truly be only one of these rare events per article posted. And as /. gorws its userbase, the goal becomes rarer and rarer. I fear we may soon need phoenix like script tools (IRC) to be successful in acquiring the ever increasingly rare first post article. The stress is growing worse by the day. I'm finding myself spending all my waking hours hitting reload, waiting for a new story to appear, and then to hit "reply", type "f1rs7 p05t d00dz!!" and submit before I'm beaten to it by someone else. Aaarruugghh!!! Must!.. be!.. first!... at!.. any!.. cost!... [click] reload [click] [click] [click] Update dammit!!!! Stupid slow slashdot! AArruugghh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) nintendo doesn't make the cards, Wizards of the Coast did.
2) Wizards of the Coast was just bought out by Hasbro
3) RICO isn't a civil tort, it's a federal criminal statute.
If it was an illegal gambling operation wouldn't that be for prosecutors to charge, not civil attorneys?
Most of us here get the point. Doing this type of card trading has gone on for ages, I remember as a kid buying baseball cards hoping to get a rare one, and that was a long time ago. That is no difference than these cards. The only reward that they are getting is what there friends give them. The card makers are not giving these kids money or anything for getting a rare card. There friend sare. So the maker of these cards are not gulity of gambling.
I wondered what Pokemon was about, so I watched an episode one Saturday morning. I decided right away that it was "about" collecting cards. You've gotta get them all!
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Pokemon Gameboy game came first, which was/is a *massive* Japaneese hit. With the game, there's a red and a blue version (I hear that a new yellow one was just released, too). The goal of the game is to wander around to try to collect all the little Pokemon, and you can use them to fight other Pokemon. The game's quite fun from just the single-player I've played.
Now, the reason that there are two different colors is that they're the same game, but the pokemon are a little different. In the blue cart, some pokemon that are common in the red one are hard to find, and some aren't present at all. The big draw is that you can link up with your friends and trade pokemon. The popularity and fun of it almost certainly has to do with why it's just fun to collect things, be they cards you pay for in packs, typewriters you track down on Ebay and pay lots of money for, or just little monsters in a game you find and get for free. Of course, Nintendo could have been planning the Pokemon CCG ever since the beginning and just did the rest of the Pokemon stuff to build up hype, but I doubt it. My guess is that the CCG is just a natural progression.
They were not forced to do anything. If the parents felt it may have let to gambling type of behaviour, they should have stopped the kids from participating in such activities. Why are the suing Nintendo? I'll never understand this American mentality.
what would it look like? A guy with a briefcase and a big tire treak on his face?
:)
hahah :) man I wish I could moderate this up..
I think Nintendo is innocent - I mean they are a lot nicer than Microsoft in this respect- the rare cards _do_ exist, while bugfree microsoft programs..
Let me just say I saw a friend of mine place a 8 of spades on a queen of hearts in windows solitaire once, and leave it at that.
>well hey, it would be _her(gender neutral)_ life
No, it wouldn't. "her" implies the female gender. "he" does *not* imply gender, although something else in the context may.
English uses the same word for the masculine and for unknown gendin several contexts.
Well, well... this one looks like blackmail - "you get to be our client or we'll sue you for every foolish case we could invent"...
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
If it's illegal to encourage a minor to gamble, and the parents say that these cards are a form of gambling, should we arrest the parents? They encouraged their kids to gamble illegally, and even gave them the money to do it! This post may also contain unmarked sarcasm, but sometimes it helps us keep a grip on reality...
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
"Torte reform", if such a thing were proposed, would have to do with adjusting the recipes used to create certain layered desserts. The legal term you're referring to is "tort".
-Mars
That's a great idea (and a really cool .sig).
;-).
Unfortunately, I *think* signing up with so many would violate most of the firms' contracts... Of course, if you have enough money they'll write new contracts for you.
I do think that it would work, though! Scary. Of course, it doesn't protect you from criminal charges... And anyone can get nailed by Tax Evasion (heck, I evade all the taxes I can!
-Billy
Accrding to the Union Tribune article about this suit, it is the same lawyer firm. So you're not just seeing things.
:-)
-Billy
This _has_ to be a joke, because if it isn't, then thousands of companies are left open to be sued over stuff like this. Nintendo is just doing something to sell their cards, and they are right in doing it.
--
Scott Miga
But there's still a large amount of luck involved,
and so it might be considered to be gambling.
After all, to use the guidelines proposed
by someone else in this channel, to setup a
lemonade stand,
there's a cost of entry
there's risk involved
there's something you get if you win (profit)
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Why could it possibly be wrong? If the gambler
chooses to behave suboptimally (i.e. use
bad strategy), then the results are their
responsibility. WRT Nintendo and the kids,
the kids arn't suffering -- it's the parents
money that's being spent, all because they're
giving it to their kids. Where is nintendo doing
wrong?
WRT worth, the pokemon cards arn't worthless
pieces of cardboard any more than a twenty dollar
bill is a worthless piece of green paper. Value
is based on perception.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Why is it just plain wrong? Would encouraging
them to set up a lemonade stand to be wrong?
They might not earn any money. Isn't that a
gamble?
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Exactly, I remember four or five years ago when POGs really exploded, the exact same happened. Parents began going nuts because it seemed that POGs encouraged gambling, and some schools even barred POG playing at school. If I remember correctly no substantial decision came as a result of this suit so I expect this [Pokemon suit] to be here today, gone tomorrow and everyone will just go back to playing the games and watching the shows. Perhaps the best is that this isn't on local news. Finally!!! Something stupid that didn't make the news!
"Calling EMACS an editor is like calling the Earth a hunk of dirt" - Chris DiBona
I bought a book on Chinese swordfighting techniques, and the inside front cover warned that the book "was for educational purposes only, and... practicing these techniques with real blades could be dangerous". All my books on exercise admonish the reader to check with his or her doctor first.
- freehand
I think we could have a very large class action suit for this.
So a couple of kids are suing Nintendo because they were "forced" to buy these cards??? Uhhm, don't you have to be 18 or something? Do they parents know they are doing this?... oh.. wait... they do! Nice going!
Before this story appeared, I thought the funniest lawsuit was the one in which a woman sued the pharmaceutical company because she ate contraceptive jelly and still got pregnant... I guess we have a new winner.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Rarity in trading cards is really not a new thing. A few examples:
WotC's Magic: the Gathering. I believe in the old 15-card boosters at one point there were 11 commons, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare per booster. Rarity is somewhat distributed equally so in a 210-card set you might have 70 rare cards. So, from just the numbers you'd hafta go through 72 packs, like 2 boxes or so, for rare card X that you oh so needed for your deck.
This was like years ago with 4th edition. Before getting rare card X was a true trial and the odds were far worse. Usually I'd go out and buy the single or trade some rather than try to get lucky.
Yet even before this, sports cards were truly notorious for this. I remember some extremely rare inserts having odds as high as 1 in a several thousand packs. Oh I remember spending at one point $20 per pack of Topps Finest to pull a Ripken that at one point was worth $20,000+. I'd prolly spend at least $20,000 before I pulled the card probably. I was probably better off playing the state's daily number drawing.
So why does this surface now somewhat shocks me and somewhat doesn't. I'm surprised because the idea or inserts and rarity of certain cards has existed for 10 years and change now. Yet I'm not that dumbfounded because nowadays you can sue for anything.
Only thing that lingers is supposedly these kids spent thousands of dollars? Where'd they get this munny, and can I have some?
Maybe it's not too late for me to sue Topps and other baseball card manufacturers. I used to spend all of my allowance on them, when I was trying to get really valuable cards!
Trading cards are hardly devices for gambling. No more so than collecting comic-books, action-figures, or porcelain dolls. And even if they were gambling devices, I see an addictive vice such as gambling much more understandable than the lack of ethics and personal responsibility that is displayed by those who bring blatantly ludicrous and frivolous lawsuits to court.
Besides, what irresponsible parent is out there letting Nintendo raise their children in the first place? These are the same idiots who gladly have their children fingerprinted, bar-coded and processed.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
*cough* Well, I heard Mario and his family were in a detox center after they ate some of the "powerup" mushrooms. 'course word has it they're gonna sue Kooba for that as soon as they recover.
--
Well, WoTC is now owned by Hasbro, so I'm sure there'll be money for a while, but in all seriousness, and knowing the innner workings of WoCT personally (check our web site and you might see what I mean,) I do belive they know how obsurd this suit is. I mean, Magic was just as "addicting" for a long time, you just had a little different group that realized what was going on instead of some overreacting parents, oh but wait, parents never overreact.
matguy
Net. Admin.
matguy(.com)
I wonder when Nintendo will be sued for promoting drug abuse by eating 'shrooms
http://www.schizo.com/
Yeah, but it's Nintendo's concept, franchise, and brand, and I'll bet you that they make most of the money from it. All the other games, cartoons, and merchandise are all just self-perpetuating sales around that product, which centers around the slogan:
"Gotta catch 'em all!"
WoTC didn't start the fire.
But then again, I don't think there is a fire after all. Just a genius marketing blitz parents should be steering their kids away from.
Peach should sue for sexual discrimination and libel too. Not only is she always portrayed as the "helpless" Princess who needs rescuing, they had the nerve to call her TOADSTOOL here in America. Ladies and gentleman, this is a clearcut case of our video game mascots not getting the respect they deserve. Peach will be represented by Toad, who has also filed suits on behalf of the Goombas for hate crimes.
http://www.wizards.com/News/pressrelease.asp?19990 909a
Here's something interesting. PARENTS are the people who drive the whole Beanie Baby frenzies. This is stupid. People and firms that go around doing this junk for publicity should be killed. I hope I never have to meet a person like this. I will probably be forced to kill them. On a side note, I hate government, but as long as we've got it, why don't we pass some stupidity and idiocy laws? I think that anyone who loses a frivilous lawsuit should do jail time! I also hate Pokemon and I REALLY hate beanie babies. I purposely ask people selling them on street corners if they have some of the ones that are (for some reason) worth more than a hunk of gold weighing the same amount as the fabric used to make the cotton ball. They then proceed to tell me how great it is that they have 'such and such' -- why they call them by name escapes me -- and that they'd be willing to part with it for no less than 'ridiculous sum.' I tell them "I'll come back to you when the market falls out of them." OK, there's a bizarre comment!!! ~GoRK
It's lawsuits like that make people even like the legal profession even LESS. :-/
I think this case will be tossed out as a frivious lawsuit. Those lawyers need to heed the words of William Shatner and "get a life."
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Seriously, I think it is because it is up to the parents to exert some distractions from the fad. Kids that age will feed on candy until either an adult stops them or they get sick. In this case, the addiction simply comes from parents who simply don't encourage their kids from being fixated on one thing.
In my area, some school principals are returning kids home if they show up at school with the cards. They claim that the cards are disruptive. While that might work in the short term, the next big fad will just come, meaning principals will have to ban the "Next Big Thing".
It is really the company's fault that the kids are addicted to the cards. I think that Nintendo has really hit the mark with their marketing strategy, but they are not solely to blame for the addictions. If parents showed more concern in their kids and would have a better solution than "buy what the kid wants so he'll/she'll shut up", the kids would benefit in the long run.
Unfortunately, I can't say that "I'll never understand this" propensity to ascribe events like this to the "American mentality." For every moron in the U.S. who is talked into doing this by a sleazy lawyer, there are a hundred who recognize the innanity of such lawsuits. As you may have noticed, there are plenty of U.S. citizens here on Slashdot.org calling this lawsuit what it is.
Why do such things happen in the U.S. and nowhere else? First of all, it's premature to say that such things don't happen elsewhere. Second, that these things happen in the U.S. at all has more to do with the dynamics that encourage law firms to file frivolous lawsuits (hot coffee, stock prices, addictive games, etc.) and nothing to do with the character of U.S. citizens as a whole.
I'm no flag waver: I too used to think that the U.S. had a monopoly on stupid people, but your comments have given me occasion to reconsider.
If 2/3 were tournament viable everyone wouldn't need to keep buying packs. We could buy less packs and we'd have good cards. Trade to get others.
You want them to design better cards so they can sell fewer boxes?
This is the company that included the "foil premium cards" into Magic sets to pump the collectability back up...
Jay (=
I really have to say.. if the parents willingly allowed and supported their children's growing addiction to "gambling" by buying more and more trading cards, then they should probably not be the legal guardians of those children anymore.
Seriously! Sueing Nintendo for something that they funded their children in doing. Perhaps they are not aware of somethings in life: Restraint. Parenting. Love.
If they really loved their children and cared for them as parents should, they wouldn't let Pokemon do the parenting and babysitting.
Next thing you'll know, parents will be suing milk formula makers for addicting their children to their chemical mixes. Or suing the government for addicting their children to di-hydrogen oxide.
Time to call child services or parental counseling if the parents have to resort to suing companies to get more money to pay for their habit instead of correcting that habit.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
You don't know the difference between running a lemonade stand (working) and gambling??? The former depends on hard work, good business sense and a bit of luck. The latter is just luck. Teaching children the value of hard work is a good thing(tm).
That's the whole basis of gambling, actually. The gambler's debt keeps increasing, so they become more and more desperate for the big win. The casino/Nintendo encourages it by ensuring that there are enough mid value prizes awarded to keep the gambler's hopes alive of recovering their investment.
Parental supervision is probably the best answer to this problem, but that doesn't mean that what Nintendo's doing isn't wrong, too.
It's one thing to lure adults into gambling, but kids deserve protection from this. Nintendo has an entire staff of child psychologists -- their business depends on knowing what children like. They know exactly how to manipulate kids into spending all their money on worthless pieces of cardboard. That's just not right.
I'm an adult, and I'm responsible for my own behaviour. But you can't apply the same standard to a 9 year old. The point of the lawsuit is that this is a gambling product specifically targeted at children.
I shouldn't have said worthless. What I meant was inexpensive. The cards cost Nintendo almost nothing to produce, so the profit margin is quite impressive.
Re: you comparison to Malibu Barbie. There is a bit of a difference. Every Malibu Barbie package contains exactly the same items. No matter how many of them you buy, you'll never find the rare hermaphroditic Barbie doll. So there's no element of gambling involved.
>Why could it possibly be wrong?
Because the gambler in this case is 9 years old. If the target audience were older I'd have no problem with this. Encouraging kids to gamble is just plain wrong.
The latter isn't just "luck." There's a much bigger lesson here, and the parents of these kids have failed miserably at teaching it: SELF-DISIPLINE.
I bought a firearm and the owner's manual was amazing. About every other page was a warning, some of them were ridiculous.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This is a frivolous law suit, if I've ever seen one. And RICO, wtf. This is a law designed for the mafia. It also allows those injured by the crimes to sue for treble (3x) damages. Hmmm, I wonder what the motivation here is.
Even if you assume it was Nintendo's objective to get these kids 'hooked', whatever happened to parental responsibility? And what I really want to know is, why do kids in 4th grade have "thousands" of dollars to blow. When I was a kid I certainly had nothing near this, and it certainly wasn't for want of money.
I think they do have a point. Kids can't be expected to make rational calculations about expected loss or profit. Lotteries that target kids are wrong, if not outright illegal. As for why the parents didn't know or couldn't stop their kids from spending thousands of dollars on these cards, I think that's possible;I remember as a child, kids in class would scrimp and save their pocket money for the craze of the time, or gamble with other kids etc.. There were even cases of outright theft.
You make great points, but the fact is that they are not litigating "addiction" but "gambling". Note that he argues the 3 elements of gambling. The fact that it's addictive is just the reason behind the lawsuit, not an element of it.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0814a.htm -- Denver Post article, august 14
Visit the Pokemon + Violence Shockwave Archive at http://www.aceplanet.net/users/_piku
-mcc-bak a
Personal responsibility is dead.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Look closer... Nintendo doesn't publish the card game. It's actually published by WotC. History may repeat itself once again...
They spent thousands of dollars trying to get a card "that could be sold for up to $100".
Obviously I'd never refer to someone I don't know as a "moron", but...
Well, yeah, if you froze to death, you wouldn't lose another coat again.. That is a powerful lesson.
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
I remember a while back that California tried to pass a law against frivilous lawsuits. I think it even got put on the 1996 ballot (http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/BP/211.htm).
I'm not sure if this is in effect today, but if it is, I hope the state Supreme Court recognizes it and blocks the lawsuit. This is getting ridiculous.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
> the phone company is trying to get an injunction against me
/.. :)
I'd imagine that of all those mentioned, the phone company *loves* you. Especially if you're on a metered phone plan or are paying them for DSL.
I know they love me and my addiction to
-Chris
Wasn't WoTC bought by TSR a little while back? If so, I'm sure they've got plenty of money to go around. $29.95 for a 60 page D&D guide? Somewhere, the magic left.
Levine
In which case, WoTC should have had this suit against them ages ago when MtG came out. You would buy a booster pack, and there was a chance that you got a nice rare card. You didn't have to sell it, the market didn't have to make it expensive. Same applies here. There is nothing that says you must sell a rare card for $xx, it is entirely your choice. And as others have pointed out, the parents could have easily realised that their children were spending an excessive amount of money on game cards. Also, what happened to "I'll give you 4 Creeps for a Sacred"? (FF8 anyone?)
-- Sapere aude.
It turns out that the firm that was suing Wizards of the Coast were suing its own corporate clients. The firm has of course withdrawn from the case. Read about it here . I guess they will be changing law firms ;).
I haven't made the full connection on how Gambling has made a part in this lawsuit. What money does a child make to gamble with? The parents money? Sure! How much can a child get from their parent? $1? $5? not Thousands.
Children don't have this thing, uh, what's it called? I think its a job. Yeah, and they weren't playing this pokemon card game as a game. They were collecting, stealing, and buying off cards. I think i'd better re-read this article to keep my story on track. I may be wrong.
To me, this is just another frivilous lawsuit that just gives people from foriegn countries to laugh at us. Not the "funny ha ha" kind though.
-PovRayMan
"Sometimes I just open my mouth and let words fall out. Sometimes my fingers are my voice."
----------
Check out my blackbox styles
Make less crap cards.
I play Magic (Funny how nobody under 14 seems to play Magic around here), and spend lots of money on cards. But most of them are crap. They make a new set: probably only 1/3 of the cards are tournament viable. If 2/3 were tournament viable everyone wouldn't need to keep buying packs. We could buy less packs and we'd have good cards. Trade to get others.
Now, I know I'm talking about Magic, and Pokemon is the game in question, and, despite what anybody thinks, the games are HUGELY different, but I'm positive that there are as many crap cards in Pokemon as there are in Magic.
Plus if all cards were equally as common the game(s) would be boring! You don't see makers of baseball cards getting sued? Do you?
How long have little boys been buying and trading Baseball cards? What motivates these trades these days ... the card's value. You have a up and coming rookie, it's worth more. The chances of getting an up and coming rookie in a pack of 12 TOPPS cards is MUCH LESS than the 1 in 15 chance of getting a RARE card in Pokemon or MtG.
... they see no boundaries since they get whatever they want these days.
This whole thing reminds me of the lady who sued Visa because they "allowed" her to get cash advances that she then spent gambling saying they were participating in illegal gambling. The whole point was that she couldn't pay the bill.
I think parents are pissed that they have no control over their kids and CAVE IN the second a kid asks for $$$ for Pokemon crap. Instead of growing a spine and raising their kid, they crumble and sue later to recoup their loses.
No wonder we have kids shooting up our schools
Can anyone clarify? Can a class-action lawsuit be filed without clients?
--
Finally, someone who sees the evils of those things...you disagree that they're evil, look at it this way:
1) They've replaced a perfectly good cartoon with the Pokemon cartoon (obviously evil)
2) Everytime I go to the mall, instead of seeing posters of women, I have to look at posters of Pikachu (not exactly my bag...)
3) My girlfriend (well, if I had one) [would have] left me for a stuffed pikachu because it's cuter and more caring to her needs.
So as you see, Pokemon are truly evil, and should be gotten rid of at whatever the cost...and since this is America, it might as well be through Frivelous (sp?) Lawsuits, I mean, that's just about all Americans are good at these days, right?
(This advertisement paid for by MAPP, Mothers Against Pokemon especially Pikachu)
I am reminded of the Doonesbury strip where Phil Slackmeyer is interviewing for a job with the Tobacco Institute. He fails their test of saying "Cigarettes do not cause cancer" with a straight face.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
You buy a card without knowing it's value, exactly like 'scratch and win' lottery tickets.
Yeah, and if you buy an oil painting at a yard sale, you don't know whether it is an undiscovered Grandma Moses worth a million dollars or an old paint-by-numbers worth forty-two cents. By this reasoning, it should be illegal for minors to buy junk at yard sales, which is preposterous on its face.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
You're referring to Chronicles. In order to avoid completely screwing the card collectors, WotC printed the cards with a white border to distinguish the cards from the older versions. It still had the effect of reducing the secondary market value of the older versions because people who wanted the cards to put in play decks (as opposed to purely collecting them) no longer had to purchase the older versions, thus reducing demand.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
If anyone could show that Wizards of the Coast was involved in the after market on their cards, then they'd have a case. (Has anyone looked into those beanie babies?) WotC prints different cards at different frequencies, but as they say, every card is $0.20 or whatever it costs to print, to them. What people do to buy and sell them later is a natural part of the market.
I remember once hearing that one of the American mottoes came down to strive for money... please correct me if I'm wrong.
;). However why is it that in America it seems so difficult to be accountable for ones actions ? Seen the South Park movie ? Funny but the point of the "Blame Canada" campaign rings so true.
Anyway, this lawsuit just shows how this kind of view is open to exploitation...
If I do something wrong then I am willing to take the full blame for it. I'm only 17 so that's happened a fair bit so far
I live in England and I have been to the United States twice now. I did quite like it there apart from the constant implication that I was stupid... in the bathroom of my hotel there's a hairdryer with the warning "WARNING ! Do not use in shower". No shit Sherlock, I though it was the hairdryers that wern't working...
... I carried on to a local supermarket where I took a look at the microwave foods - "WARNING ! May be hot after cooking". Huh ? Is that not really the defnintion in the first place.
Recently I saw a program with various MPs on it talking about how the Tobacco companies are now being sued... despite the fact that we've all known for the last twenty-five years that smoking is not good for you... be honest, we have. So when I smoke I know it is doing me damage *but* that is my choice and if in twenty years time I get cancer I will accept full responsibility - it was my fault.
So, the moral to this long and winding post ? Get your laws sorted out and make money-grabbing stupidity punishable by death.
well hey, I should sue etrade for my daytrading addiction which forced me to loose thousands of dollars! [:
In all human behavior, there is a cost ("play to pay"), an element of chance, and an expected payoff ("a prize"). So is EVERYTHING gambling?
- Have a picture
This is exactly how trading cards work, you have a vast amount of "common" cards worth almost nothing. Packs contain mostly common cards, but you might get lucky and get a rair one worth something. If you want a complete collection, you can either buy, or trade your way there. It gives many children their first experience in an economic system, and is a valuable experience.
Cheers,
Rick Kirkland
Well, no, not really. If you're not on a metered plan, they'd just assume you _don't_ use it. Particularly on something like DSL, which is packet switched - The less you use it, the less traffic on their networks.
It's important to note that you have always been able to sue anyone, for any reason.
:\
"I sue you because I don't like your haircut!" - dosen't mean you'll win. In many cases, though, tho companies will settle rather than pay expensive attorney's fees.
Okay, allow me to revise my post now that I have been enlightened.
Lady goes to McDonald's drive-through and orders a cup of coffee. She knows how hot it is (how could she not? You can feel it through the cup!) and sets it in her lap anyway. She drives away, and any third-grader could tell you what would happen next.
Not only do I still have no sympathy whatsoever, but I also still think this was one of the most idiotic lawsuits ever.
As tuxmask said, "if it hurts my hand, why would i put it on my genitals?"
Thank you for your time.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Anybody else remember the lady who sued McDonald's over their coffee? Condensed version: lady orders coffee in the drive-thru, puts it in her lap, opens the lid, and drives away... and sues McD's because it burned her.
So of course, she wins, because it's so obviously McDonald's fault, right?
This is practically the same thing... "forced" to spend thousands of dollars, my arse. The sad thing here is that, while even an idiot can see that these people have no case, there are lawyers out there who will make them a case. They'll search through all the arcane and obscure loopholes they can find, and make sure that the idiots win again.
And if these people do win, I will finally lose all faith in our justice system. Or, perhaps, our lack thereof.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
I'm thinking about saving this article as an example of how the media squirm around facts with emotional, one-sided reporting. Before panicking because the sky is falling, let's look at some facts:
.000)
1. Anybody can sue anybody else. No matter how stupid the suit is and no matter how shaky the legal foundation. I could sue each and every reader of slashdot for conspiring to kill me through Linux advocacy, and nobody could stop me from filing the suit. (Winning, or even not getting it thrown out of court, is another matter.)
2. This isn't the first time these lawyers have sued trading card companies. They have already lost 8 similar suits against companies like Topps, Upper Deck, MLB, NFL, etc. (They should read some of those cards to find out what it means to be batting
3. The Post article mentioned cards being banned in schools because of fighting and cheating. The lawsuit is over gambling. Do I miss some kind of connection. (Maybe all avarice is due to cards.)
4. The original lead attorney, Melvin I. Weiss, had to resign from the case because his firm was also representing the defendants.
5. After withdrawing from the case, Mr. Weiss said "We have been prosecuting these alleged gambling activities for the last several years." (Of course, lawyers only represent their clients. They never have vendettas)
There are tons of frivolous lawsuits filed every year. I don't know if this is one of them (IANAL), but I'm not worried about losing the right to buy a piece of cardboard with Pikachu on it any time soon.
So you're saying that if Nintendo included, say, a flavored toothpick in each pack they would be off the hook?
1. Wizard of the Coast for Magic cards. 2. Ebay 3. Postal Service - Damn it, they keep publishing new stamps. I am "forced" to buy them for my stamp collection... 4. All computer games companies - How many hours you spend playing Quake? 5. Internet - man, I stare at my screen 12 hours a day... 6. and why not the ultimate, God? - I have to breathe oxygen 24hrs a day and it is making me old :) Jokes, dudes, jokes....
It's all about turning your little kids into selfish commerciants seeking profit. That is what capitalism is about, that is what it ever was... And of course, some profit for Nintendo too, why not? They teach your kids to be avaricious, and you must pay them your hard earned money.
Oh and don't forget when the japan kids entered in convulsion with a Pokemon cartoon episode. I think nintendo has put some mind control in it...
-- You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Here's an idea for the parents:
Instead of suing the compnay that makes the ABSOLUTELY HARMLESS product, my not just NOT LET YOUR KIDS BUY THEM?
It seems that more and more parents are blaming companies for making things they object to rather than just trying to keep their own kids away from it.
It's not enough that only my kid isn't allowed to use Pokemon cards, I have to end all pokemon cards!
If they win it will set a **horrible** precendent for future equally dumb lawsuits.
Remember Southpark the movie? Remember when they blamed Canada for making the movie rather than preventing their kids from watching it? Same deal, only a lot more stupid (and funny).
Unix is mysterious, and ancient, and strong. It's made of cast iron and the bones of heroic programmers of old -
Where the heck are 4th graders getting thousands of dollars to spent on trading cards? I know this is the same firm that is basically exclusively involved in frivilous lawsuites, but putting that aside, it really disgusts me that people make their living (and probably not a bad one) off of doing this. Basically what they're proposing is that Nintendo and friends change their product from one that gives people a motivation to buy it, to one that maybe somebody will buy, but there's no real reason too, since they're just worthless peices of cardboard (of course we all know about pogs... ick). But hey, I guess it's the price you have to pay to live in a capitalistic society, where has the government been all these years while these bastards of companys have been polluting our minds and turning us into antisocial trenchcoat-wearing murderous gambling monsters? Ha! Some democracy. :)
if the kids have the money, they can do what they want w/ it, if the kids don't have the money, the parents shouldn't spend theirs instead.
sad thing is, they'll probably get a chunk of money out of this, enough to get all the pokemon cards they want
Need a Catering Connection
File a class action after every laywer that has ever filed a class action suit. Your Honor, because of my fear as being named as a defendent in a call action suit, I couldn't leave my house. It is not the fault of these people the law suits get filed they are just the clinically stupid bait for swarms of these lawyers. pretty soon we will have to sign a waiver for everything.
Banfield
Pavlov's Dog vs. Schrodinger's Cat
Banfield
if the US keeps going this way, we'll be a communist motherland in no time. no responsibility. all greed.
Americans are turning into a hateful inmature pack of childish greedy self-centered assholes.
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
And what "addict" poses for a picture happily clutching the object of their obsession? I don't remember any of the tobacco victims cheerily taking a drag off a Marlboro. C'mon folks, at least go for the forlorn Look-what-they've-done-to-me sympathy shot.
What I want to know is who can I sue? All this rampant stupidity and greed is causing me great mental anguish...
I don't know about you, but I'm going to sue my lawyer. Frivolous lawsuits are addictive, and I keep getting led into a new one by the hope that I will get lucky and win a rare and valuable one. They are quite expensive to lose, so I do need to pay to play. And man oh man are they addictive. Not only that, but they are un regulated, and even parents who act like minors (young ones at that) can participate. After reading /., I feel pressured into giving into my need to sue someone else. I will thus sue my lawyers, and yours, and his, and hers....
God I love America!
--Jeff
i find it quite interesting that the parents are demanding the company stop randomly including rare cards in regular packs.
should nintendo start a 'rare' card pack?
if the 'rare' cards were included in every pack, they probably wouldn't be 'rare'.
*my 2 cents*
-raj jr
If the plantiffs can prove that WOTC were counting on kids buying packs to try to get rare cards to sell rather than because they're interested in the cards, then they deserve what they get.
Andjam
People may ask how much M$ is paying me to say this. Let me tell you: nothing.
I get options instead.
Despite the likelihood the original poster will not repond here goes:
Lottery: Value of prize promised, except during a split.
Cards: Value of card depends upon the skill of the player. Something that cannot be put into dollars. Who the hell would play a game with an idiot who has a card that will beat anyone who plays in under a minute? Another idiot. No one else.
I think it should be thrown out on account of paying $Ks for $100 cards. Anyway the lottery comparison is a stretch in my opinion.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Ok. I'm going to send you toward a famous quote, see. Because I'm tired of saying it.
www.paranoia.com
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
That's like me sueing the gas station because I spent my whole paycheck on filling up.
He and fellow fourth-grader Andrew said they spent thousands of dollars trying to get the scarce cards that are a big status symbol with their friends.
Ok a few questions
1. How did those kids get that much money
2. Wouldn't there parents notice that much being spent on cards?
I'm done ranting - Out
Aaron "PooF" Matthews
E-mail: aaron@fish.pathcom.com
To mail me remove "fish."
ICQ: 11391152
Quote: "Success is the greatest revenge"
When I was in school, there was a candy machine which had a picture of the wrapper of the candy. The person in charge of the machine decided to randomly add an extra piece of candy to some slots. That way in addition to buying candy you were playing a game of perhaps getting free candy.
My feeling when I first saw it, was GAMBLING. Sure, we have all sorts of similar marketing schemes such as baseball cards and Cracker Jack boxes etc. I think it's all a bit underhanded.
A product should be able to sell itself on its own merits.
--SolidGold
Everything you know is wrong. Or more accurately, inaccurate.
Ok, now, here is some info on Pokemon that you may or may not know, but it does show the track record of Pokemon, both bad and good.
- Introduced in japan quite a while ago as a gameboy game developed by Nintendo.
- Several different versions (with different monster placements and ratios in each) spawn from the initial release of two paks, though i am not sure of which color.
- The name means Pocket Monsters
- It soon became a tv show in Japan, with one particular episode causing seizures to children who sit too close to the tv.
- Two movies were created, the second one will be released in the us in i believe november.
- The red and blue versions are released in the us first, then the yellow (not yet released) and then silver and gold. In japan there was also a green one.
- The tv show comes to the us... i believe minus the seizure causing episode. Music videos and cds of pokemon come out (may have been out in japan already, i don't know)
- Stuffed animals come out, with lots of other toys and such, all making big money with everything else in the franchise (wish i thought of it)
- Clones of pokemon come out, like digimon and the monster trainer game for the psx. This is for both tv cartoons (i know of 2 shows) and for video games.
- The card game is introduced in japan and the us. I really doubt people are suing over this in japan, though they are even more obsessed with pokemon than we are (hey, they have video game vending machines over there)
Well, thats all i know, correct me if i'm wrong since i am human and so i do make mistakes (sadly).
yeoua
Unfortunalty this is true. As much as i hate pokemon and i dislike nintendo i think the parents when a little to far on this one. It was there responsiblity and they should have stopped their kids before it got out of hand. This just goes to show the dismal state of our justice system now adays. As i said i dislike nintendo but i hope they win this one and dont settle out of court. But they probably will settle so oh well.
Can I Play With Madness?
Hey, idiot, the Pokemon cards are in no way a form of gambling. Why? Because the company that is selling them won't give you shit for 'em. In a lottery, the people you buy the ticket from (the state) will pay you if you win. In a casino, when you win the casino rewards you. Who is paying these people for "winning" a rare Pokemon card? The other losers who attach some kind of ludicrous value to a colored piece of cardboard. Not the company that made them. That is why this is not gambling.
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
Suing over addiction in one form or another has gotten pretty old 'bout now.
Sure, the lawsuit for cigarette (sp?) addiction was nice but in this case, these guys voluntarily go out and buy tons of cards for their personal enjoyment.
If this keeps up, don't be surprised to see lawsuits over E-bay addition, or TV addiction (for some reason, I can imagine a pretty good argument for that).
These days, you can sue pretty much anybody.
Oh well...
IB therefore I B.S.
Trouble (oh we've got Trouble)
Right here in NY City!
(Right here in NY City!)
With a capital
T and that rhymes with
P and that stands for Pokemon
That stands for Pokemon
We've surely got Trouble!
(We've surely got Trouble!)
Right here in NY City! (Right here!)
Gotta figure out a Way
t'keep the young ones moral after School!
[amazing how little needs to be updated, and how much irony there ...]
Well, this kinda relaunches the ages-old debate, doesn't it? Are you responsible for your passion or not? I believe you are responsible for everything you do - excepting the case of being drug-forced to tell something. If you are weak-willed enough to go and spend all your money on game cards, well tough luck. Why should somebody else have to pay for your own weaknesses?
If someone digs a hole and you willingly jump in it, are you going to sue the guy who dug the hole because you broke your leg?
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Here we go again -- Im going to sue big buisness because: the coffee was hot - WHO didnt know coffee was hot? Smoking causes cancer - WHO did the smoking? Guns kill people - WHO pulled the trigger? Nintendo Causes gambling - WHO did the buying? And they get away with it.When are people going to get a life and pick themselves up by their own bootstraps?
What you have to realize is that at some point these clueless morons had to go to a law office, sit down with an attorney and then tell him, with a straight face, that they wanted to sue a company for making stuff that it turned out their kids liked. Then the attorney had to keep a straight face while they described what they wanted to sue over. Imagine that conversation. What kind of a world do these people (plaintiffs and attorneys all) live in? How do they sleep at night?
--
Nothing to see here. Mooooove along...
Damn... there's a bunch of time and money wasted. *stomps off in disgust* - dom
- dom
- gnome
What's up, Mr Jones?
I'd like to belive that nintendo will win simply because its a ridiculous case... but i've lost all faith in the american legal system... and most of it citizens... and its government... humm whats left?
A whole hell of alot more people are killed/injured everyday by gunshot wounds/ car accidents, etc. Does that mean if I get shot I can sue Colt? or if I get ran over I can sue Chrysler? Coffee is HOT! If I accidently put my hand on a hot stove burner I can't sue Kenmore.
There are alot of products out there that are dangerous, every one of them probably has lots of accident reports/complaints a year, probably even more so than McDonalds coffee. Hell, I can't count the number of times I've been loosening a bolt and cracked my knuckles when it broke, I'm not going to sue Craftsmen for making the wrench, or the company that made the bolt, I can't sue Father Time for rusting the bolt in the first place.
The bottom line is accidents happen, sometimes they are painful and even fatal. That doesn't make it the fault of the manufacturer
Reminds me of the woman that sued McDonalds because the HOT coffee was.... get this.. Hot.
Or the man that sued the Windex people because he washed his contacts in Windex...WITH AMMONIA.
Don't these people read the labels? We really need laws against stupidity. I think if you sue for your own ignorance you should go to jail for obstructing justice, I mean there could have been a REAL case in your time slot.
It's like the comedian said "My grand piano doesn't have a label warning me not to go slam the lid on my balls so I think I'll go do it and sue them"
Yes, the cards could drop in value if the company started printing rare cards en masse. But if this happened, people would be suing the company left and right on the pretext that the company knew that they would be devaluing the cards. In fact, wasn't a lawsuit threatened when the Postal Service dicided to start reprinting certain rare commemorative stamps? Not that this is a good ground for a lawsuit, but then, neither is the idea that these kids are "addicted" to pokemon cards. That makes $0.04 on this topic
at least in the WotC case, they used a white border for the reprints to distinguish them from the originals (black border). If Nintendo were to just reprint exact copies of the rare Pokemon cards, there would be quite an uproar.
Cripes, I remember having a rough time coming up with cash for comic books on a regular basis. Maybe they shouldn't have had access to their education fund until they were old enough to figure crap like this out...or at least be legally responsible for it.
I want to sue the lady who sued McDonalds because she didn't know coffee was hot, and I gonna sue these people for giving their children thousands of dollars, buying the cards in the first place instead of playing something more profitably.. like the lottery. Then I will sue them a second time for being stupid. Then after that I plan on sueing McDonalds for giving the lady money for not knowing coffee was hot. Then I gonna sue the government for saying she won, and for allowing her to sue for her stupidity. Then I will repeat the process with the Silverfish and Nintendo and the government again. Then I will sue my state because i have yet to win the lottery!
i'm completely confused... I haven't seen a pack of baseball cards with gum in it in ages... And I never did get a valuable card in all the packs I bought 5$ a pack and I must have about 9000+ cards all in plastic. Not one of them is worth more than 50 cents. I should sue the baseball card store, the baseball card manufacturers, my boss at the time for giving me the money, and my parents for letting me buy the cards.
Let's all sue Bill Gates for Computer Addiction.
I know you've all spent thousands of dollars on your habbit.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
You pay to play: You spend tens of thousands of dollars and up to four years earning a computer science degree.
There is the element of chance: Maybe the economy will crash? Maybe you'll flunk your courses?
You've got a prize: That cushy job is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Hell, I can claim that working under a capitalist system is gambling (and it really is, if you think about it). Many people are "addicted" to money due to their perception that they "need" as much money as possible to "win" in our society. Shall we file a class-action against every corporation in existence? Hmmm...
It's all there in the article.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Yeah, people don't realize that those prices aren't really the values of the cards. Those are the prices the stores will charge you, but if you have a card, you're not very likely to be able to get that much for it. Back when I played MtG (4-5 years ago), the "dual lands" were worth around $10 each. However, I could never find anybody to even pay $5 for the ones I had, so obviously they weren't really worth $10 each.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, this is *identical* to baseball cards. They've been popular and legal for nearly 100 years. You buy packs in the hopes of finding one of the valuable cards, which is exactly what this lawsuit is complaining about.
Since baseball cards are a fairly well-established legal industry, I don't think this lawsuit has much of a chance.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Donald Trump (iirc) did this a time or two: interview with all the best firms in the area to disqualify them by conflict.
But guess how many firms are willing to interview him now?
The problem is that there are just too many firms out there to do this with, and the amounts that they will expect for that type of retainer rule it out even for the Microsofts of the world.
Plain cold fact of life: there's about as much money to be made by being on the other side from microsoft as there is from being on microsoft's side, and it will be rather expensive to convince a major firm to give up that potential business--if most firms do it, then the firms that are left get *all* of the business on the other side.
hawk, esq.
Rather than suing for fear, file it in a case with *real* damages.
My favorite scenario is to name the plaintiff's bar as a class of defendants (the "class" is not always the plaintiffs). The injury needs to be one in which a consumer did not receive an important safety warning, due to the stupid warnings placed defensively all over products (my favorite: the warning on a dry-cleaning bag that the ink used to print the warning was poisonous--with nothing printed on the bag save the warning).
Normally, winning the suit that caused the warning would be a valid defense. But many of these suits were pressed even though the manufacturor complied with laws regulating the subject, making turnabout fair play.
But it's all just a pipe dream . . .
hawk, esq.
One problem: when you play Clue, you don't have to pay every time, and you don't get money (or something of value) for winning. Your logic is flawed.
However, it is still possible to have to pay to play, just as it is possible for people to bet on games of Clue. It sounds silly, I know. But the point is this: Any game can be considered gambling, undr certain conditioons. Any game can also not be gambling. You do not necessarily have to pay to play Pokemon or even get packs, nor do you necessarily get any sort of prize (geez; you're telling me a small piece of cardboard is worth tons of money just because it has "Blastoise" printed on it? You're dreaming, pal).
These things only have value because people are idiotic enough to pay exorbitant sums of money for them. You're telling me a small piece of thin cardboard is worth tons of money just because it has "Blastoise" printed on it? You're dreaming, pal. Pokemon is a game. An innocent game that some people get too wrapped up in (and that can happen in any game). That's the person's own fault and no one else's.
Oh, please. Pokemon? Gambling? Not in the least.
First off, consider the case of my girlfriend. She was beginning to get interested in M:tG. though she hadn't played much. I had plenty of cards by that time, so I made her a deck and gave it to her. She did not pay to play at all. The point: Pokemon fails the first test, because it isn't always necessary to pay to play.
Yes, there's an element of chance. There's an element of chance in any game; that's why it's called a game. Even something as "innocent" as Parcheesi or Clue has elements of chance, and yet I see no one suing companies that make those. To set that up as a criterion for gambling is just plain stupid. So Pokemon would pass the second test if that test were even valid. But since it isn't, the point is moot.
And as for there being a prize: Pokemon, while it is possible to play for ante (to use the M:tG term; I don't know what Pokemon calls it) it isn't mandated. So it fails the third test ("there is a prize") because there is not always a prize.
I suppose you could say that there's an element of gambling in the buying of Pokemon card packs. But I also doubt too many people would call that a game. These kids made a stupid decision. Their parents, who could easily have put an end to it, made a very stupid decision by not doing so, thereby losing thousands of dollars. They have no one to blame for this but themselves.
Not!
The ear-to-ear grins on the mothers and the kids says it all: "We know exactly what we're doing, and we're gonna make a bundle and get famous too!"
And of course you can always get some idiot attorney to buy in to this kinda deal...
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
I read this the other day, but never dreamed that it would be /. material...
.sig, I'm starting to wonder...
These are emblematic of the morons and idiots we have for parents here in the US that give America a bad reputation. Can't anyone take responsibility for their actions at any age whatsoever? "Oh no, little Timmy likes his (Pokemon, Magic, Upper Deck, Beanie Baby, etc.) so much that he plays games to try and win more! But he sucks enough to lose! Oh my god, I have the answer - SUE THE MANUFACTURER!"
I mean, how dumb is that? No wonder Katz spends so much time lately writing about alienated teens. Is it me, or have the parents here in the US become more and more clueless with each generation? I really hope that when my wife and I have our own kids, my brains don't get washed away like these parents' brains have.
Despite my
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
"No matter what he's doing, he always has a tub of that ice cream in front of him." claims Smith. Reportedly, the 'Mint Chocolate Chips!®' flavor is the preferred flavor of 17 year-old Jimmy, who added: "I just like it. I don't see what the big deal is." The addictive properties on this particular flavor of ice cream have yet to be studied, as this is the first documented case. Smith insists, however, that it's far too addicting, and warrants a lawsuit.
Anne Johnson, spokesperson for Dreyer's, declined an interview, but issued a press release stating "We at Dreyer's are comitted to making the finest Ice Cream available, and we want our customers to be delighted with our products. A situation like this makes us particularly sympathetic, however we have not heard any similar complaints regarding any of our products."
"Horsesh--" says Smith. "They make this stuff addictive on purpose, so people will like it and buy more." When asked if she thought that was the point, Smith simply stated "Absolutely not." She continued: "My son comes home from school, goes to the freezer, and grabs the container. Then he sits down at the computer and spoons it into his mouth while programming. He's lazy!"
Dreyer's executives were not available for comment.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Children should be responsible, to the extent that they are able. But I recognize that, at certain stages of development children are not quite yet mature enough to handle it.
In that case, the PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE.
Read the story, which mentions the kids are around 9 years old. Where in the hell do kids get the "thousands of dollars" they were "forced" to spend? The story says they "emptied their piggy banks" but I think that's just a euphemism-- given child labor laws, I doubt these piggy banks could have contained much, and thus I bet their money came from adults.
So, why weren't the parents saying no? If the kids were turned into gambling addicts, its the parents who did it. The money burning characteristics of collectable card games notwithstanding, no one FORCES one to buy them.
And no one certainly forced the parents to allow their children so much money to do so!
If they win, I'm totally going after Wizards of the Coast ;)
If they win Wizards of the Coast won't have any money left for you to get.
From the article:
Court papers said Nintendo, along with U.S. distributor Wizards of the Coast....
I think that I am really sick and tired of reading about people who are suing for things that they should by no right have the ability to even have a say over. Suing Nintendo for including special cards in the packs with regular cards is obserd. Putting the special cards into the packs is what making buying the cards so much fun. I grew up collecting baseball cards and eventually basketball and football cards. In addition to the regular series or cards, there would be at least one special series. These cards were generally worth more money then the rest of the cards were, and yes they were randomly included in the packs with the regular cards. This was what made the whole experience fun. I couldn't wait to open up the and see if I got alittle something special in there, but I also couldn't wait to see if I got another Don Mattingly card in there. I hardly think that it would be right for me to sue Topps, Upper Deck, Fleer, Donruss, and Don Mattingly for that matter. I really do hope that the American leage system doesn't do something wrong and even give these people the time of day, but of course this is just my opinion and why would we really want to bring logic into American leage matters. We never have in the past.
Technology's a battle between companies producing more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots
This just furthers my case for the need in the U.S. for torte reform. Stupid lawsuits like this just tie up the legal system and cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars a year.
while we're at it, lets sue the sports card manufacturers. They do the same thing.
Hell, lets sue McDonalds. Those happy meals are probably just as addictive.
How about Ty? Didn't they retire beanie babies to make them more valuable?
Maybe I should sue my ISP while I'm at it. I spend more than 5 hours a day on the Internet, which according to a recent story on Slashdot qualifies me as an addict too.
My journal has hot
I wondered what Pokemon was about, so I watched an episode one Saturday morning. I decided right away that it was "about" collecting cards. You've gotta get them all!
Shades of Star Wars and its action figures!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Now okay, it is a trading card game - and trading them may be part of the fun. But who's fault is that? Does the company force anyone to pay x dollars for a card? No. Do they set the prices on the cards? No. That's where it becomes most rediculous - there are so many places to attack this article it's not even funny, but I think one of the strongest points is that the prices are set by an independant company (at least AFAIK). Back in the MtG days WotC decided how many cards to produce but didn't decide that card x would be worth y dollars; it just worked out that way.
- tred
The American Mentality:
I have the right to life (mine, screw yours),
I have the right to liberty (who cares about you),
and I have the right to happiness (that means I want your money, and more of your money).
Certainly, the US was not established with this in mind.
But, to paraphrase a rule from programming, build a
better form of government, and I will built a better tyrant.
The oppression of the British monoarchy caused the creation
of the US government structure to defeat the occurence
of such a situtation. Now, we have bred a new and better
replacement: the average US citizen, who is responsible
for nothing, for they 'obviously' are motivated by horrible
scars from their childhood, and so shouldn't have to account
for there own actions.
Sure, I'm a US citizen. I'm just ashamed to be one.
Apologies for not being more eloquent, it's late,
and I can't write that well.
Are you kidding, I'm going after my Postal company, they make the stamps and sell them after all, even releasing limited series stamps sometimes.
Or how about the government, they make all those soon to be rare coins, right?
-
slashdot needs a 'stupid lawsuits' topic.
Rarity was originally tied to game utility in Magic: The Gathering with the idea of preventing players from having too many overpowered cards in their deck. As we now know (and, frankly, should have been obvious at the time), this turned the game into a contest of wallets rather than a contest of brains. Since then, WotC has introduced other counterweights to excessively powerful cards (e.g. restrictions and bans on certain cards in tournament play, introduction of new cards to defend against power cards) to tilt the game back toward skill.
It is now generally recognized that tying card rarity to card utility is a Bad Thing, and game publishers that make a habit of it get a "Billgatus of Borg" reputation in the gaming community.
In a properly designed game, the reason for making some cards rarer than others is to make it more difficult to complete an entire set.
If all cards would be equally common, they would have to be equally powerful, and that would make a hell of a boring game.
Say, does anybody know where I can get an "Ace of Spades" to complete my NuPoker deck? (I tried asking my local collector, but he just bent my ear for an hour with a story about some boring old version of poker where you automatically had one of each card in the deck.)
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Around here in Redmond, home of just about everyone's favorite company to hate, we also have the corporate HQs of both Nintendo of America and Wizards of the Coast closeby. Naturally, every preteen in town is carrying their pukemon cards everywhere they go. Every store in sight carries the suckers (right down to the 7-eleven) and the WOTC Game Centers located in several malls in the area are so infested with the little pokemonsters that no sane person can approach them. Recently overheard at a local Target store was one parent who's kids were bugging her for another collectible toy, and she relented, saying "As long as I don't have to go near that stupid pokemon store."
On the other hand, I found out today that a stray pokemon card that ended up in our house made a great tool for spackling the wall for painting purposes in the absence of a putty knife... "Gotta Patch 'em All!", I guess.
Windows is not a virus. Viruses actually do something.
I'm gonna sue Nintendo for the pain in my thumb from 11 straight hours of Zelda-64.
Is that gambling any more than crossing a street is? I've personally come a few feet from being run down, after carelessly expecting that a driver would *not* run a red light. {shrug} Or, I occasionally buy goods online -- and to an extent, I could be said to be gambling on trust in the other party, in the shipping / supply-chain, and so forth. Whatever we do is, to a degree, gambling. The question is where to draw the line.
Is purchasing any form of collectibles gambling? Or, for that matter, shares in, say, AT&T?
One facet that might be looked at is whether there is any intrinsic value besides resale. If Mr. Gates were to speculate in cars by randomly buying luxury vehicles only to sell them like new an hour later, does that mean that buying cars should be treated as gambling since it *could* be used as such? On the other hand, there's not that much use for, say, a round at video poker other than the mathematical expectation of a (negative) reward...
Not being into Pokemon, MtG or any other card game (well, except those that involve poker decks and jokers), I'm not able to claim either way: that they're useless except as commodities to trade/sell (and thus become a variation on currency, but one that's a lot less liquid or reliable), or no. If it's the former case, then it's not that much different than buying envelopes for, say, $10 ea that each may or may not have a larger amount of money in them. Now *that* would be more clearly gambling.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
the cards could drop in value if the company started printing rare cards en masse. But if this happened, people would be suing the company left and right on the pretext that the company knew that they would be devaluing the cards.
It was something like this that got me out of the M:TG market a few years ago. If I remember correctly, WotC released a new expansion that reprinted tons of the old cards from previous expansions, and the value of those old cards dropped like a stone. My previously $2000 collection of M:TG was instantly worth about $500. I got out while the getting was good, as I think WotC continued reprinting and instituting tournament rules that made the old cards useless for most players (who play based on tourney rules).
I don't recall any lawsuits over this, just lots of grumbling, and lots of people getting out of the game. I think that it was one of the worst decisions WotC made, and led to the general reduction of interest in M:TG nowadays.
September 11 1998
Trial Lawyers Swing for the Fences With Allegation that Baseball Cards are Dangerous to Kids
According to the August 11 San Diego Union Tribune, Los Angeles-based trial lawyer Henry Rossbacher has filed three class action lawsuits alleging that baseball card companies, by printing limited quantities of certain cards, are promoting gambling among children. Rossbacher says that by limiting the quantity of valuable "chase" cards, and by printing the odds of getting one of these cards on the outside of packs, card companies such as Upper Deck Co. and Pacific Trading Card Inc. have established the "functional equivalent of a lottery." His lawsuit seeks damage awards for all kids who have been lured into buying cards in the past four years.
"It's just like Joe Camel," says Rossbacher, "They're selling a dangerous product to kids."
This is almost exactly the same as the Magic: The Gathering game. Wizards of the Coast (makers of the game) doesn't set the value of the rare cards. From the manufacturer point of view, a Jester's Mask (valued at $20) is worth just as much as a common Goblin (10 cents). The company doesn't make an extra nickel off the Jester's mask, they sell every card for the same amount, not individually, but in packs. Nintendo does the same thing. They get n dollars for a pack of cards whether the pack contains all 5 cent cards or a 20 dollar rare. So the company isn't making any money off it, its all the kids and the market. You can't hold the company responsible because they don't make any extra off the rares. It's not gambling, its kids learning a life lesson.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Just 'cos the cards *can* sell for $x doesn't mean they will. Many rares in MtG were/are useless unless someone found a new use for them in a fad deck of the month. {g} And of course unless the kids know the market they're going to be burned regardless. (I let Autumn Willow go for a song, way back when... baka...) Ahem. In any case, store owners aren't obligated to fork over any money at all for rare cards, unless it's to turn around and sell them for even higher prices. Now, since this is WotC, I assume this is the Pokemon CCG. This begs the question, why are the kids buying scads of cards to get rares to *sell* them when they could just be trying to better their decks? I wouldn't blame this on Nintendo, or WotC, since they made a game and not something static like a baseball card set. I don't know who to blame. *Someone* has impressed on these kids that the cards are pure money and have diverted the focus away from playing the game to viewing it as a way to get rich by selling rares... =\ Certainly different from what happened in MtG. (Well, at least in my case and in that of most of the people I met playing it.) - dom
- dom
- gnome
What's up, Mr Jones?
I definitely agree with theGnome on this one: the idea that these kids were "forced" to spend thousands of dollars on these cards is absurd. How, exactly, does a nine-year-old force his parents to do ANYTHING? I once tried threatening to run away, and my parents helped me pack until I caved in. Nine-year-olds, in general are not capable of manipulating their parents to that extent. It seems to me that the parents are more at fault than Nintendo, because the parents are providing their nine-year-old children with huge amounts of money with which to buy these cards. I remember being obsessed with Magic: The Gathering when I was in 7th grade, but my parents didn't give me thousands of dollars in hopes that I would buy a pack of cards containing a black lotus, or another similarly rare card. The point, my friends, is that Nintendo can hardly be held resopnsible for the bad parenting practices of these parents. Just my $0.02
A lot of people commenting here are missing the point. I am a parent and my children pressure me to allow them to buy and trade Pokemon. I don't let them. But the issue is not one about parents and responsibility.
IN MOST STATES MOST FORMS OF GAMBLING ARE ILLEGAL. THOSE THAT ARE LEGAL ARE REGULATED AND STATE FRANCHISED.
IN ALL STATES IT IS ILLEGAL TO ENCOURAGE A CHILD TO COMMIT A CRIME.
Why do you think you have to be 18 to buy a lottery ticket? Why do you think you have to be 18 to win the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes (void where prohibited)? Why do you think you have to be 18 to win a Corvettee in a drawing at the mall?
The lawyers may be slimeballs, but buying Pokemon trading cards is little different from buying lottery tickets. You buy a card without knowing it's value, exactly like 'scratch and win' lottery tickets.
Arguing that the case has no merit because lawyers are slimy is a non-ingeniuous argument ad hominem. We might as well argue that the makers of Pokemon, Barney, and the Teletubbies all deserve the death penalty because they make ridiculous children's products and because they cause endless pain and suffering to parents everywhere.
Now you may argue that gambling shouldn't be illegal, and that the government shouldn't interfere in people's sex, social, or recreational habits, but as long as gambling is regulated, anyone who promotes a non-licensed game of chance is breaking the law, just like someone who tries to illegally sell a controlled drug is breaking the law. People who push gambling on kids are no better than people who push drugs on children.
(Editor's note: The above contains unmarked sarcasm and humor. The views represented above are not necessarily those of Anonymous Coward or AC Inc.)
these kids has also filed similar suits against
Magic and other CCG (collectable card games),
and in the case of the Pokemon CCG, they found
two likely kids among several 'applicants'.
I compare this to the suit that the woman that
sued her credit card companies because she
lost $75,000 on her cards because she was
gambling illegally on the net, and they (the
credit card companies) didn't stop her.
Law suits are not supposed to make up for
human stupidity.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
It's not so much that there are 'strange' (for lack of a less offensive word) people that will do something like this, but it's like saying "Well gee, you guys make products that our kids have too much fun with. Make something dull and annoying, not fun and addictive."
Hell, maybe we should let them run the country. I wouldn't mind having a national day declared in honor of video games (I know I'm not aloneNow I don't blame the lawyers, because if I was one I'd love to handle a case like this either as prosecutor or defendant (is that the correct terminology? I don't know the last thing about the law). But parents like this seriously get to me. I've seen a mother buy a $250 coat for her kid, have him lose it, give him the same amount of money so he could buy it again, and he lost it again! Guess what-- she dished out another $250. I mean jeeze, if I ever lost my coat ONCE my mom would let me freeze to death for a good week so she would be sure I wouldn't lose the next coat! (And I love you dearly for that, mommy).
Parents have got to teach their kids lessons. It seems we're letting them do anything they want these days. And when that happens (and I know some of you will hate me for saying this, but tell me there isn't a certain degree of truth about it) you have accidents like Columbine.
In recent history, suits against the tobacco industry have been successful, as it has been proven that there was a physiological addiction to the nicotine. However, before it was ever shown that
suits against tobacco companies were, for the most part, unsuccessful. The argument of the tobacco companies was that you bought the product, it was your choice to continue using it. However, once shown that there were physiological reasons for continued use, suits against the companies won.
These kids are addicted simply because it's fun. From the article, it looks like one of the claims of the parents/kids is that schoolmates created an environment with such peer pressure that the kids felt like they had to play, or they would be ostracized. They might as well sue the friends!
The argument of this case is entirely ridiculous. The kids could have stopped at any time. No "addiction," besides that which was artificially created by the kids' friends. Nintendo will win this one on precedent alone. It's a ridiculous case.
-David Ziegler
-dziegler@hotmail.com
-David Ziegler
-
Nintendo's legal woes will never end. This week Mario sued over unsafe working conditions this week, citing having to work in lava pits, falling down pipes, eating "powerup mushrooms", and dodging fireballs. Mario is also seeking legal compensation after his brother, Luigi, was eaten by a giant fish on level 3.
--
Huh ? they aren't forced to do a damn thing. This to me looks like a case where incompetent parents are unwilling and/or unable to regulate their kid's behaviour. If they really spent thousands on these cards, what on earth were their parents doing blindly handing out small fortunes to such irresponsible children ? Geesh, they could buy a gun on the black market with that money.
Surely, if the parents think it looks like gambling, they should regulate their kid's behaviour. It doesn't appear to be unambiguously a "gambling issue" though.
Yes, there's an element of chance. There's an element of chance in any game; that's why it's called a game. Even something as "innocent" as Parcheesi or Clue has elements of chance, and yet I see no one suing companies that make those. To set that up as a criterion for gambling is just plain stupid. So Pokemon would pass the second test if that test were even valid. But since it isn't, the point is moot.
- --
-----------------------------------------------
One problem: when you play Clue, you don't have to pay every time, and you don't get money (or something of value) for winning. Your logic is flawed.
Beyond that, this lawsuit is stupid, and old ground. IANAL, but it seems to me that since no particular card has more intrinsic value than any other, the claim is invalid. Case in point: do you remember when Pepsi had the special cans that when you popped the top on them, instead of soda a $20 bill sometimes came out? Soda (purchased at $2.50 for 12 cans) was intrinsically worth a set amount of money to Pepsi, and the $20 was worth $20 (duh!) For this reason, you could get a free game piece (this is true of most contests -- "No purchase neccessary") by mail. That way it isn't gambling. Since the cards only have a value determined by what a collector is willing to pay, they aren't intrinsically more valuable than any other piece of cardboard.
Also, with the Pepsi, and with the Pokemon cards, if you do lay out your money, you will at least get what you were promised. i.e. 72 oz of soda or a bunch of trading cards. Contrast this with the lottery, where the only value in the ticket is the possibility of hitting a jackpot. By itself, a lottery ticket is a worthless piece of paper. It represents the chance of winning money.
Finally, to quote Meatloaf, "There ain't no Coupe DeVille hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box."
-"I talked to God and here's the deal/ He said to floss between each meal" -- Uninvited
I wonder if this means that a large company, such as Microsoft could simply have all the major law firms under constant retainer. It wouldn't cost *that* much compared to the billions of dolars rolling in, and it would insure that only crappy law firms could go up against them.
:)
If I ever get to be a billionare mogal, I'll have to remember to do this
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
News flash!
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Business managers sue Microsoft, claiming that they "were forced to spend thousands of dollars searching through box after box of products searching for the rare, bug-free programs Microsoft claims to have produced."
Abuse is common as contractors may dupe unsuspecting IT management into trading their stable, proven *nix technology for what the contractors swear are "newer, cooler" versions.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Without making any judgement on the kids'-show-turned-empire, or the trading card frenzies in general:
If the substance of the charges is true (that the company randomly places rarer cards in packs, that turn into commodities due to this practice), it *is* pretty close to gambling. The factor that in my mind separates it is that Nintendo is most likely making no promises whatsoever about any intrinsic value of these cards; that is determined by market economics. Unlike, say, a raffle or lottery (which promises that a winning ticket *will* be worth a specific prize, or a share of a monetary jackpot), these cards could drop in value if the company said, "You don't like rare cards? Fine. We'll publish 'em en masse, for cheap.", or if the craze simply died out.
Ya buy, what, marked cardboard? And no promises about the value of such. On the other hand, a casino had better honor its chips...
Whether or not the government should be in the business of regulating gambling -- as it does --- is somewhat of a side issue, unless Nintendo is specifically trying to challenge that doctrine.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I saw this report on a Los Angeles evening news, and at the end of the report, they added that a while back similar lawsuits were attempted on Baseball card manufactures citing the same reasoning. Those suits were thrown out, and most likely this one will to.
Sig goes here
When I submitted this story, I included some more cool details:
First of all, the lawyers doing the suing are the same folks who sue corparations when their stock goes down.
Second, it turns out that one of the corparations being sued here, 4kids, was dropped from the lawsuit because -- guess what -- their defence firm turned out to be the same firm that was doing the suing!
Those lawyers were evidently unable to check to see that the corporation that they were suing was one of their clients.
Source: Union Tribune, "Law firm sues own client."
-Billy
Mark my words, Malda... I'm gonna make you pay for this! *g*
Seems silly? No more so than a bunch of parents suing because their kids are "addicted" to a game. Yeesh. These parents need to take responsibility - if they think there kids are addicted.. maybe they should enroll them in a Pokeamon 12 Step Program. "Hi, my name is fubar, and I'm a pokeaholic"...
--
Parents could not be reached at work or in their brand-new Volvos for comment.
The "lottery" explanation that all the discussion seems to be centered around is missing this fundamental point.
Nintendo isn't making certain cards "rare" to pump up the market value - at least, that's not the ONLY reason, which is what the suit is implying.
Why are there rare cards? Because they are more powerful within the context of the game. If all cards would be equally common, they would have to be equally powerful, and that would make a hell of a boring game.
Yes, there is a desire to get "rare" cards. Part of it IS to impress people - but they have a legitimate use within the context of the game.
The "lottery theory" implies that Pokemon's only purpose is for money. That's not true - it's an actual game that is capitalizing on legitimate cultural trends. As with other CCGs, though, there is a sub-market for rare cards. That shouldn't be the main focus, which it has seemed to become.
Tort
Hey, parents! Wanna know how to stop your kids from buying so many Pokemon cards? It's an absolutely amazing, simple and effective solution... Don't give them all that money! 'I was forced to buy all these packs to get rare cards!' It must be those strobes. Nintendo's putting subliminal messaging technology to great effect. Way to go, boys! *sigh* I have to say this lawsuit really surprises me. If I was going to predict something like this I would have pegged it to come in the middle of the MtG craze. But it's a few years later, times have changed... and now my ten year old cousin usually has more pocket money than I do. - dom
- dom
- gnome
What's up, Mr Jones?
I think a lot of respondants are missing the point of the suit, ridiculing it for the wrong reasons. I'm not saying the suit isn't ridiculous, but they're not suing simply because the card frenzy is addictive, but because it's an addictive form of *gambling*. Consider the analogy of Pokemon cards to lottery tickets, which isn't a stretch, but at least worthy of consideration. Even when state governments bleed suckers dry with lotteries, they draw the line at selling them to minors. The article mentions Pokemon cards meet the three tests of gambling: "you pay to play ... there is the element of chance, and you've got a prize." Cracker Jack boxes certainly match the same criteria, although when you've got prizes with established and predictable market values of $100 or more, there is a question of where to draw the line. "Contests" like in "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," in reality, are typically limited to adult participants.