EVE Search - Is CCP going to be the target of some serious legal allegations?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Is CCP going to be the target of some serious legal allegations?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Daedrin Dremora	Posted - 2007.12.06 14:46:00 - [61] Originally by: Winterblink I think they've exercised more than enough due diligence since the problem was found. The patch was pulled, and if you throw a rock in any direction you're going to hit something plastered with instructions on how to correct the problem. People are making this out to be like they came to your house and killed your first-born. Exactly. That, and any person who plays a game has to pretty much make an assumption that there will be problems, or any form of software. Rather than attack those who are trying to provide the interweb with quality, fun game play, why not stick your guns on individual who key log, supply viruses or offer soft core **** instead of hard core?
CompMage Caldari	Posted - 2007.12.06 14:47:00 - [62] I don't see them getting sued. But I do see some major problems arising from PR dept. And likely at lot of people dropping their subscriptions. I mean how the hell do you write a GAME that deletes the boot.ini file that in the root of C:\.
Verone	Posted - 2007.12.06 14:47:00 - [63] Originally by: Alassra Eventide Verone, your new sig is perhaps the only sig I have EVER seen that beats your old one. Everyone needs to pay him for that amazingness. Seriously. hahaha, i chuckled as i made it <3 >>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
Gutsani Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.12.06 14:50:00 - [64] eula doesnt stands a chance in court also, to people saying that it only deleted/modified a file; isnt that exactly what virusses and spyware does? ccp deffo have to pay up for repairs, feel free to disagree but if someone sues them over this, they are VERRY likely to win. Kreul Intentions ==****got
KarGard	Posted - 2007.12.06 14:55:00 - [65] Originally by: Winterblink I think they've exercised more than enough due diligence since the problem was found. The patch was pulled, and if you throw a rock in any direction you're going to hit something plastered with instructions on how to correct the problem. Well, since this is a blatantly obvious bug in the patch, any compitent level of testing would have discovered it. So no, I don't think they performed anything remotley close to "due diligence". I bet their test manager is going to be having a serious meeting in the near future.
Daedrin Dremora	Posted - 2007.12.06 14:55:00 - [66] Originally by: Gutsani eula doesnt stands a chance in court also, to people saying that it only deleted/modified a file; isnt that exactly what virusses and spyware does? ccp deffo have to pay up for repairs, feel free to disagree but if someone sues them over this, they are VERRY likely to win. You're actually quite wrong, and judging simply by the way you are seemingly ignorant over your own language or keyboard, I would very likely assume that you are just as ignorant over matters of law, and for that matter, corporate law. Their punishment for this problem will be what it should be- some people, hopefully you, leaving.
Empyre Domestic Reform	Posted - 2007.12.06 14:58:00 - [67] what a crybaby. The official goon buzz-kill.
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.06 14:59:00 - [68] It didn't do anything that wasn't reversible, of course a few people are going to be calling friends / dropping their PC off to be repaired to figure this out however....
Kimiko Kurosawa The Krugerrand Groupies	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:00:00 - [69] Edited by: Kimiko Kurosawa on 06/12/2007 15:00:29 Originally by: Alassra Eventide Verone, your new sig is perhaps the only sig I have EVER seen that beats your old one. Everyone needs to pay him for that amazingness. Seriously. This. And um... mumbles something vaguely on topic about lawsuits
Daedrin Dremora	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:06:00 - [70] Originally by: KarGard Originally by: Winterblink I think they've exercised more than enough due diligence since the problem was found. The patch was pulled, and if you throw a rock in any direction you're going to hit something plastered with instructions on how to correct the problem. Well, since this is a blatantly obvious bug in the patch, any compitent level of testing would have discovered it. So no, I don't think they performed anything remotley close to "due diligence". I bet their test manager is going to be having a serious meeting in the near future. You're assuming way too much about how they run their tests, or the processes they took in the development of their patch. You can speculate all you want, but it matters ** all in the realm of court. What are you going to do, spend 500 dollars an hour hiring a lawyer (you clearly can't represent yourself, as I've yet to see a sound argument based off empirical data) to have a judge hear you and... let's see, I think I've seen maybe 10 other people *** about this thus far, about how you A. wanted to play a game B. there was a minor problem during a particular phase C. it didn't effect everyone D. it wasn't malicious and E. they came out with several solutions to the problem that offers you no harm except a minor, economic set back or maybe 30 minute inconvenience. The true problem is that the CCP has proven that there are individuals out there who own computers that have absolutely no clue as to what they're doing. What we should do is require folks to have knowledge about their heavy machinery before we let them operate it. A simple certification check to see that they at least have the knowledge on where to find solutions should be a requirement before anyone can touch a keyboard. Right now all we have is a bunch of ******s poking at bricks and bothering the few and the proud who can at least figure where to go to solve a problem they may have.
Nuandha Caldari Pukin' Dogs D0GMA	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:12:00 - [71] Originally by: Valan Edited by: Valan on 06/12/2007 14:19:53 Originally by: Thrust SSC Originally by: Jonny JoJo Edited by: Jonny JoJo on 06/12/2007 13:32:11 CCP are not in Europe (though Iceland is part of the European Economic Area), and I doubt anyone is going to ramble a legal case that would not be thrown out by a judge. Iceland is in Europe Removed - Valorem Geographical yes, politically no, which is exactly what he said! Would return the insult but a lack of knowledge isn't really your fault. Sorry to tell you this, but you are wrong. Europe is no political entity, although some people use it as a synonym for the EC. This is as incorrect as using America for the U.S.A. Therefore, Iceland is politically and geographically in Europe. Kind regards from a European which is not member of the EC and never will be :P -------------------------------------------------- Designated Splitter! --------------------------------------------------
Deirdre Sky	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:13:00 - [72] Well I must say that this boot.ini-failure is a BIG MESS! A lot of people has the right to complain, vent and smack CCP, because of what has happened. But I must say its not the only game that has such issues. Its just hell unfortunate that THIS happened to this GREAT game also - to lose the whole OS. I must say that the first page - http://eve-online.com/news/newsOfEve.asp?newsID=500 - striked me! Well since I experienced such crash after a game was uninstalled I must say ... PATIENCE!!! Its hell of a crap but we still love this game!
Jian Blade	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:14:00 - [73] Edited by: Jian Blade on 06/12/2007 15:14:12 Do people (Especially in the USA) really understand how daft they look to the rest of the world when they cry and sue for life's events? Life throws you curve balls every day. Handling these is how you grow as a person. You try and sue people for as much money as possible, instead of taking life in your stride and then wonder why the world is getting very anti-US and EU is getting more upset over nanny states.
Snowcrash Winterheart2 Gallente Concordia Discors	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:15:00 - [74] As has been said their is a class of people out there without a clue about their computers... usually they're very belligerent and have more money than sense (I've worked for several such people lol). It's a difficult thing, CCP could admit liability but that'd open the flood gates... or it could hide behind a EUlA of dubious enforceability. Of course it all depends on if your average EVE player affected by the boot.ini thing would want financial remuneration... or something else... such as game time to the value of <repairs>. In some respects a minority of players getting scragged is a mea culpa type thing, I've seen Microsoft patches steamroller whole rooms of machines. Computers eh? Can't trust them, can't fly internet space ships without them. God my spelling sucks today. ----- Four paws... four sets of claws.
Daedrin Dremora	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:15:00 - [75] Originally by: Deirdre Sky Well I must say that this boot.ini-failure is a BIG MESS! A lot of people has the right to complain, vent and smack CCP, because of what has happened. But I must say its not the only game that has such issues. Its just hell unfortunate that THIS happened to this GREAT game also - to lose the whole OS. I must say that the first page - http://eve-online.com/news/newsOfEve.asp?newsID=500 - striked me! Well since I experienced such crash after a game was uninstalled I must say ... PATIENCE!!! Its hell of a crap but we still love this game! Great points. I completely agree with you.
Kale Kold Caldari V i r u s	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:16:00 - [76] This is probably going to hurt CCP as much as the new patch was going to help them. This is a serious home goal for CCP. website \| killboard
MEISAPI RAT	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:19:00 - [77] Originally by: Daedrin Dremora Originally by: KarGard Originally by: Winterblink I think they've exercised more than enough due diligence since the problem was found. The patch was pulled, and if you throw a rock in any direction you're going to hit something plastered with instructions on how to correct the problem. Well, since this is a blatantly obvious bug in the patch, any compitent level of testing would have discovered it. So no, I don't think they performed anything remotley close to "due diligence". I bet their test manager is going to be having a serious meeting in the near future. You're assuming way too much about how they run their tests, or the processes they took in the development of their patch. You can speculate all you want, but it matters ** all in the realm of court. What are you going to do, spend 500 dollars an hour hiring a lawyer (you clearly can't represent yourself, as I've yet to see a sound argument based off empirical data) to have a judge hear you and... let's see, I think I've seen maybe 10 other people *** about this thus far, about how you A. wanted to play a game B. there was a minor problem during a particular phase C. it didn't effect everyone D. it wasn't malicious and E. they came out with several solutions to the problem that offers you no harm except a minor, economic set back or maybe 30 minute inconvenience. The true problem is that the CCP has proven that there are individuals out there who own computers that have absolutely no clue as to what they're doing. What we should do is require folks to have knowledge about their heavy machinery before we let them operate it. A simple certification check to see that they at least have the knowledge on where to find solutions should be a requirement before anyone can touch a keyboard. Right now all we have is a bunch of ******s poking at bricks and bothering the few and the proud who can at least figure where to go to solve a problem they may have. Oh, I see. So, it's not CCPs fault people cant boot thier computers. Its the consumers fault for trusting a program they paid for to work. Yeah, that makes since. thx for clearing that up daedrin
Kiviar Caldari Vice-Presidential Action Rangers	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:22:00 - [78] Originally by: Kale Kold This is probably going to hurt CCP as much as the new patch was going to help them. This is a serious home goal for CCP. Well, much like the whole GM scandal a while ago, this will convince a lot of people that ccp is a mickey mouse operation and that eve isn't worth playing. I can't imagine they are actually going to be sued, nor do I imagine more than a few people are going to quit. In the end, I don't care, i'm too busy shoothing things in my shiney new 'Geddon. ---
Arquiteto E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:25:00 - [79] It's funny how everyone loves the game but is so quick to attack the people who created it. Suck it up. Reinstall windows. Redownload all the "ADULT" videos and shut your mouth. You should be embarrassed for even having mentioned pursuing legal action about this. Have a nice day
Daedrin Dremora	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:28:00 - [80] Originally by: Snowcrash Winterheart2 As has been said their is a class of people out there without a clue about their computers... usually they're very belligerent and have more money than sense (I've worked for several such people lol). It's a difficult thing, CCP could admit liability but that'd open the flood gates... or it could hide behind a EUlA of dubious enforceability. Of course it all depends on if your average EVE player affected by the boot.ini thing would want financial remuneration... or something else... such as game time to the value of <repairs>. In some respects a minority of players getting scragged is a mea culpa type thing, I've seen Microsoft patches steamroller whole rooms of machines. Computers eh? Can't trust them, can't fly internet space ships without them. God my spelling sucks today. I've no doubt that some recourse should be offered, but a law suit is just silly. This is analogous to a restaurant's getting your order wrong- it happens. But you don't sue the place. Yeah, it wastes your time. Yeah, it's aggrevating. Yeah, you wanted bacon but not mustard, but you know what, sometimes life gives you mustard. Corporations would be non-existent if people could sue for easily solved problems.
Noodle Pastaman	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:30:00 - [81] I worked for a British company that programmed telephony systems, in its contract it had we are only liable for the cost of the phone system and not loss of business etc. The company screwed up and invoked this clause, the judge threw it out as a defence and the company lost badly. UK has laws regarding 'reasonable contracts' I have no reason to believe other nations are any different. As for legal costs, at least in the UK we have small claims court up to a few hundred pounds $1000?, the sole legal costs for a person bringing the case is a stamp!. CCP but in fact the whole software industry will be watching this. If you put a patch on the OS you may break the OS (which is why MS official recommends backup,test servers etc), if you put a patch on a computer game you do not expect to bring down the entire system
Thebro Nobrunder	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:32:00 - [82] While I believe that software companies should be help more reliable for their software... they really cannot be sued. (well, they can be sued but it won't go anywhere). Think of it this way. Can you sue Microsoft for the security vulnerabilities that allow the storm worm to propagate? Can you sue them when word crashes and you lose your document?
Malcanis High4Life SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:32:00 - [83] Originally by: Noodle Pastaman I worked for a British company that programmed telephony systems, in its contract it had we are only liable for the cost of the phone system and not loss of business etc. The company screwed up and invoked this clause, the judge threw it out as a defence and the company lost badly. UK has laws regarding 'reasonable contracts' I have no reason to believe other nations are any different. As for legal costs, at least in the UK we have small claims court up to a few hundred pounds $1000?, the sole legal costs for a person bringing the case is a stamp!. CCP but in fact the whole software industry will be watching this. If you put a patch on the OS you may break the OS (which is why MS official recommends backup,test servers etc), if you put a patch on a computer game you do not expect to bring down the entire system If we're going to start being "reasonable", then what are "reasonable" damages for a problem that takes 10 minutes to fix? Note that CCP are NOT responsible if you do further damage to your system because you don't know how to repair it. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Thebro Nobrunder	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:34:00 - [84] You might as well sue microsoft. Who would ever create an OS where some random piece of software could destroy a vital system file? Every OS except MSoft is immune from this sort of thing.
Daedrin Dremora	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:35:00 - [85] Originally by: MEISAPI RAT Originally by: Daedrin Dremora Originally by: KarGard Originally by: Winterblink I think they've exercised more than enough due diligence since the problem was found. The patch was pulled, and if you throw a rock in any direction you're going to hit something plastered with instructions on how to correct the problem. Well, since this is a blatantly obvious bug in the patch, any compitent level of testing would have discovered it. So no, I don't think they performed anything remotley close to "due diligence". I bet their test manager is going to be having a serious meeting in the near future. You're assuming way too much about how they run their tests, or the processes they took in the development of their patch. You can speculate all you want, but it matters ** all in the realm of court. What are you going to do, spend 500 dollars an hour hiring a lawyer (you clearly can't represent yourself, as I've yet to see a sound argument based off empirical data) to have a judge hear you and... let's see, I think I've seen maybe 10 other people *** about this thus far, about how you A. wanted to play a game B. there was a minor problem during a particular phase C. it didn't effect everyone D. it wasn't malicious and E. they came out with several solutions to the problem that offers you no harm except a minor, economic set back or maybe 30 minute inconvenience. The true problem is that the CCP has proven that there are individuals out there who own computers that have absolutely no clue as to what they're doing. What we should do is require folks to have knowledge about their heavy machinery before we let them operate it. A simple certification check to see that they at least have the knowledge on where to find solutions should be a requirement before anyone can touch a keyboard. Right now all we have is a bunch of ******s poking at bricks and bothering the few and the proud who can at least figure where to go to solve a problem they may have. Oh, I see. So, it's not CCPs fault people cant boot thier computers. Its the consumers fault for trusting a program they paid for to work. Yeah, that makes since. thx for clearing that up daedrin You've hit the nail on the head and you're starting to think like a lawyer. Guess what?! You get to choose your form of entertainment in life. If you don't want to assume the risks involved, or can't even comprehend possible risks... yikes, you may want to think again. It's clear you don't understand the point I'm truly trying to make. Yeah, CCP screwed up. Yeah, it sucks for a lot of folks. I don't deny a penny of that. I scoff at the thought of a law suit, though. But hey, waste your hard earned money and time. I'm not involved in that field at all, what would I know (laced with sarcasm).
Daedrin Dremora	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:36:00 - [86] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Noodle Pastaman I worked for a British company that programmed telephony systems, in its contract it had we are only liable for the cost of the phone system and not loss of business etc. The company screwed up and invoked this clause, the judge threw it out as a defence and the company lost badly. UK has laws regarding 'reasonable contracts' I have no reason to believe other nations are any different. As for legal costs, at least in the UK we have small claims court up to a few hundred pounds $1000?, the sole legal costs for a person bringing the case is a stamp!. CCP but in fact the whole software industry will be watching this. If you put a patch on the OS you may break the OS (which is why MS official recommends backup,test servers etc), if you put a patch on a computer game you do not expect to bring down the entire system If we're going to start being "reasonable", then what are "reasonable" damages for a problem that takes 10 minutes to fix? Note that CCP are NOT responsible if you do further damage to your system because you don't know how to repair it. QFT. Yay for others making sense!
Skaz Minmatar	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:39:00 - [87] Short answer: NO they won't Long answer and legal mumbo jumbo : All Above. Plus I think you can forget about any CCP response as they are unlikely to comment on a thread that might be about a possible lawsuit. - - PINK PINK PINK PINK
Volkovic	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:42:00 - [88] This "situation" has nothing to do with "company" or corporate law. All Eve users are "consumers" (I will stick here to the EU region, which has - generally speaking - very similar statues concerning consumer protection). Since consumers are generally protected by special laws, these laws have to be applied regarding the relationship between CCP and the affected user. Taking this into account, it can generally be said, that the so called "EULA" is not going to hold up in any court I have been in or know of. This takes not into account the other valid arguments made in this tread (already paid product e.g.). All codes of law include some minimal protection for consumers, which cannot be "overruled" by any contract, especially not by some EULA. From a legal perspective this could be an interestig case, it contains some interesting "first timers", for example the seat of CCP is in Iceland, the affected user is not (the majority at least), so issues regarding the place of venue are to be taken into account. By what kind of contract is the relationship between CCP snd user is governed by? It surely is not an license agreement (even if it is dubbed this way), more like some rental agreement. I will stop know,
Snowcrash Winterheart2 Gallente Concordia Discors	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:49:00 - [89] Originally by: Daedrin Dremora Originally by: Snowcrash Winterheart2 As has been said their is a class of people out there without a clue about their computers... usually they're very belligerent and have more money than sense (I've worked for several such people lol). It's a difficult thing, CCP could admit liability but that'd open the flood gates... or it could hide behind a EUlA of dubious enforceability. Of course it all depends on if your average EVE player affected by the boot.ini thing would want financial remuneration... or something else... such as game time to the value of <repairs>. In some respects a minority of players getting scragged is a mea culpa type thing, I've seen Microsoft patches steamroller whole rooms of machines. Computers eh? Can't trust them, can't fly internet space ships without them. God my spelling sucks today. I've no doubt that some recourse should be offered, but a law suit is just silly. This is analogous to a restaurant's getting your order wrong- it happens. But you don't sue the place. Yeah, it wastes your time. Yeah, it's aggrevating. Yeah, you wanted bacon but not mustard, but you know what, sometimes life gives you mustard. Corporations would be non-existent if people could sue for easily solved problems. As someones sig happily points out I'm using Linux thus unaffected, I agree a law suit is silly in the extreme. The hard truth of the matter is, if people did try and sue CCP the only people to reap any rewards would be lawyers. ----- Four paws... four sets of claws.
lolzor	Posted - 2007.12.06 15:58:00 - [90] For al we know the removal of the boot.ini is a feature, the fact that you installed this software makes you liable for the damages caused.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.