QUOTE(feflicker @ Jan 18 2008, 10:19 AM)
On #2, where is the proof that MS$ did not plan for the influx of new subscribers? I GUARANTEE in a courtroom MS$ IT staff will show that they did due diligence in server configurations, networking, etc. to handle the new customers. I am sure they will demonstrate that they acted reasonably and prudently in preparing for new customers. Then they will show the information they had from their simulations, etc. They will prove in 5 minutes that the problem was not due to "negligence" as you claim, but due to circumstances that could not have been predicted. I'd bet everything I own on that.
Just like I can't know that MS didn't do enough to prepare for the finlux of users, you can't know or guarantee anything the other way... you may be right, I may be stepping outside my bounds with my statement, but it certainly is odd that in the same breath you accuse someone of it you do it also.
Do you work for MS? Did you see their strategy? Do you know something we all don't know? Please share!
QUOTE
As to #4, how are you defining "makes"? Obviously there is CONSIDERABLE overhead involved in Xbox Live. Internet connections, support staff, developers, hardware, etc. Out of that $500 million I bet MS$ only "makes" $50-100 million, which they probably re-invest into development.
I think you mean #5 but I define makes as "gross revenue acquired".
Live is an entity, the whole dept that is responsible for live is one body. I do not discern which employees and which rolls my dollars go to, they go to MS Live dept.
Further I don't see the point of your statement... yes their profit is not the same as their gross intake, but that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
When you take in revenue for a service, then don't provide it, it's not unreasonable to expect you do not keep what you took in for it. You don't factor out their expenses...
If I pay Best Buy $100 to come out and install my TV, they don't come and I want a refund, I am sure as heck not going to be ok with "$100 - $10 that we spent on advetising,-$5 we spent on certifying our employees -$8 that we pay our bookeepers to process or your order and cancellation etc etc etc grand total $54 refund".
How much you take in is the least you should be accountable for if you fail. The point of punitive action is to create an undesirable situation for the company. If all you took away was profits, then the message it would send is "consistently provide poor quality and no service, then if you are caught, you don't loose anything but if you are not caught you profit like crazy!".
Think about it, when you catch a robber, you don't just take back the stuff he stole and call it even, you also punish him for it. The point is not to encourage bad behavior. If you just told a robber "when we catch you we will take back what you stole minus whatever it cost you for gas to get to the persons house and the tools you used to break an entering" who wouldn't be a robber? At best you come way up and at worst you break even... punitive measures are meant to counter to coming up part, and you don't counter coming up with breaking even.
So there you have it, what I define as "makes" and why operating expenses have nothing to do with what I the point I was making.
*And I am happy to say it's been quite a while between people making silly comments about my analogies like "you are comparing a robber to a company that had a failure in service" I just want to put a preemptive statement up, if you were going to say that, please don't. You probably just don't understand how analogys work.
QUOTE
Frivolous lawsuits do not help consumers. They hurt them. MS$ has to subsidize the cost of their services with $ to cover legal expenses because of douchebags like these guys.
No they don't, yes MS will have to subsidize costs, it is in eventuality a closed system. But that again is flawed logic if you think it means there is no reason to provide punitive measures.
It's a lesser of two evils scenarios... if every business would always act ethically and responsibly, then I think we would all be very happy.
But the fact is they don't, and when they don't there really should be some action taken to reprimand them. Sure they will hike prices to make up for in the end but that is part of the reprimand, if prices are higher for that business, their sales may suffer from it, it's also a closed system.
While it's easy to say lawsuits don't help consumers, please analyze what complacency does for the consumer... in fact you don't even have to research it much... the results of a society ready to accept poor treatment and shoddy workmanship surround you already.
I agree lawsuits and class action lawsuits are a pretty poor tool overall to deal with the issue, they have some flaws in functionality, are definitely abused at times and are pretty broad hitting with their results, but unfortunately, it is one of the few effective tools consumers have dealing with big companies.
QUOTE
Filing a class-action suit, and getting 50 people to join it does not bring validity to the suit. It just shows that there are 49 other people who also want to get paid. Hell, if I thought this case had a chance in hell at winning I'd throw my name on there so I get a check too (if I were a complete douche)... How many people do you think are going to try and get their name on it, JUST INCASE there is a payout?
Sure, people may abuse this tool. And I agree this is hardly a perfect tool for the situation... I wish there were better ways to get businesses attention and make them understand that treating there customers poorly is not acceptable. But sadly money is a very strong language, and one that businesses understand.
Lawsuits are not a simple black and white solution where there is one cause or one effect, it's all balled up into a big action.
So yes, some people will wrongly try to get in on the suit, some people may not have actually suffered damages, some people may be hoping for huge wins or support the suit for other than moral reasons. That is all true.
It doesn't change that lawsuits are the tool that our current system has set in place to appeal a decision to a higher power when you feel you have been wronged.
They are often annoying and have many negative sides, I wish we didn't have to lawsuits all over either... but then I wish my tax dollars weren't going to paying for jails and inmates housing and health care, I wish we didn't have to spend so much money on cops and law enforcement... but as imperfect as those solutions are, they are what we have and what the system is set up to handle.
If you can find a better solution, please do! But until then it might be best to consider the whole value of a situation, not just one negative side of it.
Arguing that class actions suites as a whole or any one in particular is good or bad is like arguing that a 360 is better than a PS3 or vice versa. There is no such delineation... it's a complex mix of pros and cons... the best you can do is when making statements of opinion in regard to either subject, try to be sure of your facts and reasons and apply logical statements, not emotional attacks.
QUOTE
Another thing, it's real easy to sit on a high horse and dismiss everyone elses views and call them "uneducated" and "childish" because they don't have the same viewpoint. In my experience, the person who claims this educated highground is alwasy the biggest uneducated fool of them all.
Sure it is, and often they are... the only bigger fool than one who wrongfully claims to be righteous and high, is one who makes claims about that person... also without base...
If you would like to read my post and fairly consider the points I made, I think you will see that first off, I don't claim to be on a high horse at all... I just voice my opinions which I back up with reasons and facts. Sure they are still opinions, but that's all any of us has, is opinions. The difference is I try to make sure mine are based of valid reasons and solid foundations.
If you have actually bothered to read what I wrong and think it through, please feel free to question what I say in a logical and creative manner, I take no offense to creative criticism.
If you want to resort to ad hominem attacks without base or backing, well I can't really stop you, but you only damage your own image in the process.
Author
Topic: Lawyer Speaks Out on Xbox LIVE Lawsuit (Read 1202 times)