[MUD-Dev] Blacksnow revisted

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

From: "Steve (Bloo) Daniels" <bloo at playnet.com>
> Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

>> The problem is fundamentally that Mythic have allegedly told
>> auction sites that they *do* own the game data, since this
>> complaint is grounds for the sites to close any auctions
>> involving that data. That's just a big lie, which almost
>> certainly constitutes obstruction of commerce and probably
>> harassment as well. (It is further questionable whether this
>> constitutes monopolistic behavior.

> I'd be careful about accusing companies of deliberate
> misrepresentations in bad faith in a public setting.

I know. See the word "allegedly" in the quoted material above.

I can't find a statement by Mythic as to what they did or didn't
do. If I could, I'd use that as confirmation: if both parties say
that event X occurred, chances are it really did occur and nobody
will bitch if it didn't. But since Mythic hasn't said anything, I
have absolutely no idea what they did or didn't do. So whatever may
be alleged, I can't vouch for its truth.

> Also, in case you're not aware, you cannot use statements such as
> "in my opinion" as a shield, it is no 'get-out-of-jail-free' card.

I didn't say "in my opinion", I said "allegedly". There's no opinion
involved. The fact is that someone said Mythic did something, and I
have no hard evidence in either direction -- but I'm going to assume
for the sake of argument that it's an accurate report, because it's
an interesting question.

> There is such a thing as a 'natural monopoly' and these do not
> offend antitrust law.  The most common natural monopoly derive
> from...you guessed it...intellectual property.

But selling a service is not selling intellectual property, and a
monopoly on a pure service is unprecedented. Blacksnow are selling
their time and effort in obtaining something you want and handing it
to you, all of which they are perfectly licensed to do on DAoC. I am
allowed to go and get the item, I am allowed to give it to someone
else, and the service of doing so is not Mythic's property. Whether
the *item* is Mythic's property is really quite irrelevant, and
whether I got paid for the service is also quite irrelevant.

>> And chances are this is how the whole thing is going to play out
>> in court, because it makes the entire intellectual property issue
>> irrelevant. And judges don't *like* to make intellectual property
>> decisions unless they have no choice.

> True.  Mostly because this case is a question of Contract law, not
> property.

That's an oversimplification. Blacksnow claims that Mythic cancelled
their accounts and had their auctions closed on various sites
through the normal IP-protection mechanisms because Mythic claims
the items and characters and accounts are their intellectual
property. Even if we assume that all of this is true, Blacksnow is
selling the promise of a service they will perform, and Mythic has
no right to regulate Blacksnow's promises to perform services. I can
mouth off about how I'm *going* to do something all I want, and
nobody can say a damn thing about it until I go and do it. Or don't
do it, as the case may be.

>> If Blacksnow goes into court and seeks a remedy for events that
>> never happened, how much of a remedy do you think they're going
>> to get?

> I'll take your question at face value.  The merits of the case
> would not be heard.  There is no question or controversy.

Which is precisely my point. I haven't seen a direct statement from
Mythic as to what happened. According to them, they have contacted
auction sites and asked them to "respect our wishes" in not allowing
the sale of items/accounts. That could mean any number of things,
but one thing it does NOT say is anything about who "owns" the items
or accounts. I have a grave suspicion that Blacksnow is filling in
some of the various blanks in the case with guesswork and rumor,
without actually knowing the facts. And if they did, the entire
issue not only does not get heard, but the public *perception* will
be that Blacksnow "lost" even though the case was never legitimately
argued.

> Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer.

LOL

I love legal humor.


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev