Are you seriously listening to yourself?  You honestly believe that every single user that got banned would have signed up again and started playing again?  Thats a stretch and even if only one didn't that proves my point.  Second if that was such an issue why isn't Blizzard sueing every user they have banned to get their 8 months of subscription fees?  I'll tell you why cause that is plain stupid!

Sorry I am not going to figure anything and the court should not either.  If Blizzard cannot prove it than it did not happen, you can look at it anyway you like but that is the way it goes.  Not only that but Blizzard claims 10 million plus active subscribers, I can only take the exact numbers I know and Blizzard states only several thousand specifically referenced Glider unless more can be proven then that is all blizzard can use.  I don't care what they assume.  They can not get damages from this guy if they can't prove it was caused specifically by Glider.

As for players that would have played for 7 months but got banned because they used Glider, uhm to bad to Blizzard that is like a store suing a theif for all the future purchases he/she would have made if they weren't in jail!  Give me a break. 

Blizzard is continuing to ban bot users. The lawsuit is an attempt to cut off the source of the problem. To use a criminal analogy, bot users are drug users, at most a neighborhood dealer. MDY is the guy in Columbia producing the drugs in the first place. It's nto a perfect analogy, but it fits. Players would not be able to use this bot if MDY did not supply it, and continuously update it.



To an extent, yes. I'm assuming the judge made a ruling on the information that couldn't be released publicly. The general highlights were released as public information, but proprietary information - from both sides! - is withheld to prevent others from repeating MDY's actions.



All bots are harmful to a certain extent. What raises Glider to an entirely different level is the way it was designed to evade detection. Yes, blizzard is claiming most of its bot-related losses are due to glider, MDY doesn't dispute that fact. You're arguing a point the defense was willing to stipulate!



I am sure some would not. I am also sure some would have continued playing well past the 8 months. That's why it's called an average.



Luckily for everyone involved, your standards of evidence are irrelevant. There is no reason to assume a casual observer would be able to tell which bot was being used, anyway. The evidence on how Glider bots are distinguishable from other bots is part of the sealed testimony. The judge obviously felt there was enough evidence to rule on it.

If you'll note, the exact amount of damages is one of the issues held over for the full trial. Maybe we will get more comprehensive information at that time.



No, it's Blizzard suing the guy selling tool kits to beat all the anti-theft devices.

I see so your analogies are the only ones that count?

No Blizzard specifically states that the damages are not speculatively, they say nothing of an average they are saying they want 8 months of fees for every player banned.  That is complete crap.

No I am not, I am saying they can't claim damages that they can't prove are caused by MDY even if MDY admits they are causing damage Blizzard still has the burden of proof as to what that damage is.

No you are either assuming or your not there is no extent.  Without seeing the unseen data your assumption is not better than mine.  Judges are not infalable, in fact cases are overturned all the time.  Even cases that are not challenged doesn't mean they are right, should I list them.

LOL yeah ok, sorry maybe if I can stop laughing at that analogy I would respond.

 

If yours had been even marginally relevant, you might have had an argument. Blizzard is not suing individual cheaters, it is suing the company that gives them the tools necessary to cheat.



Go back and reread, please. The "this damage is not speculative" line appears in the paragraph addressing customer discontent and reputational losses, not the financial losses. From filing 39 :


"A study of WoW play estimated that an average user needs approximately 480 hours of play to reach the maximum character level. Whereas a typical human player averaging two hours a day would thus need eight months to reach the highest level, a Glider user can run the bot and achieve the same level in less than one month. (SOF 257-59). Thus, Glider users can "skip ahead" to the advanced levels without having to pay the additional seven months of subscription fees required of a legitimate human player...."

That sure sounds to me that Blizzard set up a model to estimate losses. Changing any of the assumptions would change the outcome. This is partially why the issue of damages was held over for trial.



You are correct, but MDY not disputing the fact they are causing the damage makes Blizzard's burden of proof a lot lower. Again, this is why the issue of damages (not that damages are owed, but the amount of them) is held over for trial.



While decisions can be overturned, they represent a far smaller share compared to the ones that are not. My position assumes the judge is competent until proven otherwise; yours assumes he is incompetent until proven otherwise.

I don't need to reread anything, you either aren't listening or only hear what you want.  I have been saying not that Blizzard doesn't have a formula or didn't come up with it through averages.  What I am saying is I find their assumption that every player would have play the 8 months, they are flat out wishing there, they only deserve damages for the players they can prove would have continued playing WOW after the ban, my point is there is no formula or average on he planet that can give them that answer, it is a complete unknown, sorry but that is reality whether you (or Blizzard) like it or not.

Damn hit the wrong button!

Uhm my analogy was very relevant in what I was comparing and that was my comparison of Blizzards attempt at claiming damages.  I was not refering to Blizzard sueing individuals.  Again I am only talking about Blizzards attempt to claim damages ther is no way they can ever prove cause the information is not there, it does not exist.  No matter what formula they use.

I absolutely never said that the judge was incompetent, that was you. Over turned cases and rulings do not mean a judge is incompetent it just means his interpritation of the law was not correct in the eyes of his peers, laws believe it or not are interpruted by judges.  Also if you don't think reversed cases happen frequently you may want to look into that.  Just as one example look up the 9th circuit they keep the supreme court very busy overruling their rulings in fact.  Not only that but if individuals had unlimited funds I would bet that even more cases would be overturned.

 

Barring time travel, your standard of evidence would be entirely umprovable under ANY circumstances. Even interviewing every individual player who was banned would be suspect; how could they know how long they would continue playing? Luckily the law exists outside of what your fantasy says it should be.



What made your analogy irrelevant is that Blizzard had a contract with the banned users, so they could easily define exactly how much money they were losing each month. You can argue whether the length of time is appropriate or not, but the loss of monthly income cannot be argued.

Compare that to the hypothetical losses of someone stealing from a store. The store cannot easily prove how much the person was spending each month, nor could they reasonably assert that ammount would remain constant into the future.



Does that not pretty much define what "incompetent" means in a judge? If his peers believe he makes wrong calls in a high percentage of his cases, that implies he is not competent to make those decisions. So yes, by assuming his decision will be overturned you are calling him incompetent.



Thank you, I did. In 2002 (apparently the latest year such statistics are available), The 9th Circuit heard approximately 5100 cases, 24 of which the Supreme Court reviewed, and 18 were reversed. That's a 0.35% reversal rate - higher than other courts, but not reason enough to assume this ruling will get overturned.

You miss the point, I am only pointing out that even the 9th circuit court makes mistakes an frequently enough that the supreme court yearly hears and over turns more of their cases than any other.  Just means a judge can be wrong and not incompetent as you some how seem to think.  In fact 9th circuit judges are some fo the most respected!  I guess you have never been wrong cause that would mean you are incompetent.  Geez!

No it does not, that is quite possibly the goofiest thing I have ever heard.  There are things such as mistakes or just differences in opinion.  Laws are constantly overturned or changed that does not me that the individuals that created them are incompetent or stupid it can just mean they don't agree with the majority!  Examples from just recently. hand gun ban overturned inn DC, Californina gay marriage ban overturned!  Just to big examples of laws or desicions overturnd not because someone was incompetent.  Glad you see everything as either black or white but real world just doesn't work that way.

Of course they lose money when the ban someone but again if they want that persons money have them prove they would have paide for 8 months.  Not going to happen.  Plus banning users is a cost of thier business.  MDY had absolutly no contract or agreement with Blizzard no matter how you like to slant it.  EULA does not equal law it cannot be applied to everyone whether you want it to or not so my point stands if they want money they need to sue the banned users and try and prove that they would have played for at least 8 months.   THat is not possible, just like it is not possible for a store to prove a thief would have bought whatever over the next so many months of jail time.  There is no difference. 

Yep that is exactly what I am saying, glad you see how impossible it would be to prove, just cause you don't agree doesn't invalidate the point or make it fantasy.  So glad you put infinite faith in the legal system. let me just say I am glad not everyone does otherwise we would be in a world of hurt.  Questioning stupid rulings and laws is a good thing.  Sorry your fantasy world doesn't accept that.

the argument that, because blizzard is still in business, anything that potential reduces their profits is OK is probably one of the most poorly thought out arguments on this entire forum. most people learn in elementary school that you can't do what ever you want whenever you want because either directly or indirectly you are hurting someone else or in some way violating their rights. that bot hurts every WOW user who doesn't use it as well as blizzard who has to combat it. aside from that it is a clear violation of the EULA which no one can dispute. regardless of how anyone may feel about the state of the legal system, It simply cannot be argued in any intelligent way that blizzard was wrong. It clearly says in many EULAs that violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law, and that's what this is.

this argument that has been going on for the last 2 pages is absurd. Prozac here has either been sleep deprived or is insane. the way u portray the legal system is simply absurd. no analogy will fit perfectly, but yes, Willy's analogies are far more relevant.

as far as modeling losses, it is entirely possible and like it or not, that's how it works. the world is to complicated to model perfectly, like Prozac would seem to like, so we model things based on the probable outcome of the situation. most people who buy a game and like it intend to beat it, so that is how blizzard modded it.

anyone can be wrong prozac; the judge, Willy, and you. admit that possibility.

no matter how much the point is argued, the company that made the bot will be put out of business. there were over 30 million in losses claimed, and the ones responsible aren't worth a tenth of that. they are completely screwed.

I never said multiplayer was dead. Just that Cheats/ hacks are killing off (Free) multiplayer gaming. Check the listings. I can remember a time when there was no pay to play multiplayer games. Now theres tons of them.

Asking most of my old Unit of why they like the new pay to play games, I was told, constant development,and they keep hackers/cheaters at bay. So one of the top 2 biggest reasons to go with play to pay games is the constant resources used to keep hackers and cheats out. Go figure. But yet cheats dont drive folks away from games with less resources available to fight cheaters? Hackers and cheats are not a factor?? hmm...

Mean while back on planet earth. Pay to play games are gaining in popularity, look at EQ and WOW 2 imencely popular games, both pay to play. If there are cheats or hackers they are typically dealt with swiftly. And as of now by this decision it seems are being held accountable for their actions.


To deny hackers and cheats Impact gaming and or its evolution, at best is as nieve as claiming Pirates are not the reason for the antipiracy movement in the digital music industry. Please who are you trying to kid?

In my opinion, from watching the evolution of gaming, that eventually gaming will all go pay to play. AND yes cheats/ hackers will be part of the driving force behind it.


Oh and If you sign a contract to buy produce from a farmer ,as much produce as you can harvest in a day unaided for X amount of $ a month. On average he knows you alone will take aprox 8 mos to get a years worth of food. But you decide to cheat and hire a guy with a machine to harvest the food in 1 month, thus breaching the contract and shorting the farmer 7 months of revenues. The farmer has the right to sue you and the mfg of the equipment since the bot maker also signed the same contract agreeing not to make or use Machines as a way to harvest.


It amazes me that folks sign contracts then get all self rightious when busted for knowingly breaking that contract.

ProzacMann - A judge's overturn rate is one of the most common measures of competence, as each overturned case indicates a misreading of the law or serious procedural error. The judges promoted to higher courts are generally the ones with the fewest overturned cases - not saying that is the only criterion, but is one of the big ones.

I'm happy to see you've downgraded your opinion of this ruling to "stupid". That's progress, of a sort.



By your standard of proof, I wouldn't be able to prove my own name! Nowhere in law is absolute proof of anything required. Criminal courts hold the standard as "beyond reasonable doubt" while civil court rulings are based on "the preponderance of evidence". Expecting absolute proof is a fantasy.

God, I hope there's no one this deluded on the jury I'm sitting on tomorrow.

you said:



I repeat what I said:





Ummmm.. no. Are you seriously listening to YOUR self? It would be more like comparing it to a locksmith selling the thief a key to perform the robbery. Blizzard is not suing the end users, they sued the guy that created the software. sheesh... get a grip will ya   

Yep I am insane and crazy because I think Blizzard is wrong in this case and this is a bad precedent to set.  Apparantly I am not the only crazy out their, http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/you-bought-it-you-dont-own-it oh yeah and public knowledge also thinks Blizzard is wrong.  Whatever!  I truly think all of you need the help, you can't seem to find the forest through the trees.  This is not a simple Blizzard was wronged wha wha case. 

Gee and even the court found that MDY didn't violate the DMCA by circumventing warden.