349
Valve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewhere (www.eurogamer.net)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
519 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

The fuck kind of an antivaxxer argument is this? If an health expert tells you get the vaccine do you also go "better come to my own conclusion"? Just because I don't Dunning Kruger myself into believing I know enough about the subject matter to form an opinion doesn't mean I'm not interested in the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Do you listen to Dr. Oz? He's a surgeon. Practiced. Does that make his medical opinion gospel?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    No. Despite his knowledge and understanding of medicine, his claims are not credible because there are a lot of documented instances where he's used his own medical authority for personal gain.

    So if you want to go down that route, start proving that the NYAG is not credible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Credibility does not imply infallibility.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Well you're neither credible nor infallible so why should I even care about your opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Y-yes. So, you should read the case for yourself, so you can make an estimation. The case is a rough outline of how the State is going to attack. You can then, try your best to think of any legal explanation against it. Then judge for yourself if Valve is in the wrong. But I already said that and I feel the looping starting. whoaaaaaa

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, the loop is starting again because you clearly don't see what is wrong with the "don't listen to the expert, do your own research" argument. Fucking genius conversation. You, without a law degree, arguing with me, without a law degree, about a very specific legal gray area like we know what the fuck we're talking about. No, it's stupid which is why I'm refusing to partake in it. I'm not going to act like I know how to make a legal argument which is why I'm pointing at someone who is supposed to know what the fuck they're talking about. I don't get why you want to drag this conversation into something neither of are even remotely qualified to talk about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Why are you acting like legal arguments are so convoluted? They're usually straightforward and boring. Because they have to be. You're just choosing to not put in effort and instead look at articles. If you want James' actual opinion, read the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Dunning Kruger in full effect. "How hard could this thing be that takes years to work through by 6 figure professionals? I can totally make those arguments myself."

    And just for your information, I have read the complaint in full. It's another example of you just assuming you know things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Okay, since you've read it, how do you think the Section I-22,23 relate to Steam specifically? I'm asking you to read those words and try to understand them and make a judgement.

    I personally feel like Section II is a typical case layout. But I find it strange about the equivalence made in that Section. Your thoughts?

    Do you think that Section III is demonstrating a system in which you are presented the opportunity to gamble? I'll be honest, James' makes a good case. But that doesn't matter because 1999 NY v. Nintendo of America had the same groundwork and was dismissed. The issue came into the case that, Pokémon cards did not carry any inherent value, unless you went to a third party and that third party offered money. Thus, insulating Nintendo from a closed loop system. Let's keep going!

    Section IV-A-78 seems to me as a stretch to close the loop. It's the same argument I've aforementioned. But my question for you is, when does the system close in this case? And do you think (87) is a fair comparison? At what point does the proof of an economy constitute gambling? Do we need to go after all blind boxes? Your thoughts, since you've read the case?

    Section IV-A-89, at what point is it Valve's responsibility to go after third party sites who are doing what people do in the real world? Attaching monetary value to cosmetic items in video games, I mean. Do you think the SSA obligates them to? What are the chilling effects of that? I feel like that could give corporations a lot of power, and I don't like that.

    The listing of selected enforcement opens James' case to a lot of attacks. I think it's a failure on her part, as it will weaken the case in front of a judge if Valve's lawyers just immediately rip it to shreds.

    Section V just feels like TCG all over again.

    Now the danger to children, again, if we go with this being a danger to children, then ALL TCGs are a danger to children. They open packs looking for rares, right? Same concept. But how are children getting that much access to money? That's starting to sound like a parent problem. Who is letting their kids spend hundreds of dollars? Like, that's just bad parenting.

    The Causes won't hold water. They're not air tight and are very vulnerable to attacks. But hey, I'm just an idiot, right? Just another Dunning-Kruger dingbat? Which is just hilarious that you keep bringing it up, misunderstanding the actual study and flaws of it. What would you say that is?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Bro what the actual fuck?

    Okay, since you’ve read it, how do you think the Section I-22,23 relate to Steam specifically? I’m asking you to read those words and try to understand them and make a judgement.

    Do you even understand what I-22 and 23 mean? There's nothing to judge, there's nothing to relate to Steam because those two points establish the definition of gambling and the law that regulates gambling. This is just laying the foundation for which the rest of the suit is built upon. At this point I don't know if you're throwing out some sort of a gotcha or if you're really that stupid to think those two points have anything to do with Steam or whether there's anything to judge.

    I personally feel like Section II is a typical case layout. But I find it strange about the equivalence made in that Section. Your thoughts?

    I have no idea what you're even referencing here. Section II seems to establish who Valve is and I think does that but once again, not a lawyer, so I have no idea why it's worded the way it is. Clearly there's some reason to do it that way.

    Do you think that Section III is demonstrating a system in which you are presented the opportunity to gamble? I’ll be honest, James’ makes a good case. But that doesn’t matter because 1999 NY v. Nintendo of America had the same groundwork and was dismissed. The issue came into the case that, Pokémon cards did not carry any inherent value, unless you went to a third party and that third party offered money. Thus, insulating Nintendo from a closed loop system. Let’s keep going!

    You're going to have to cite the source for the NY v. Nintendo of America lawsuit. Beyond that I can't comment on anything else.

    Section IV-A-78 seems to me as a stretch to close the loop. It’s the same argument I’ve aforementioned. But my question for you is, when does the system close in this case? And do you think (87) is a fair comparison? At what point does the proof of an economy constitute gambling? Do we need to go after all blind boxes? Your thoughts, since you’ve read the case?

    Of course it does seem like a stretch to you and according to you it's the same argument to the lawsuit that you haven't cited, so I can't comment anything about that. As for the rest, once again not a lawyer, so it's not up to me define when the system closes. I can only give my dumbfuck opinion which is that the system is closed when there's no official way to get monetary value out of the system. You can only dump money into the system but you can't get it out. And what is a fair comparison? 87 explains how CS skins are used as an investment, there's nothing to compare. The rest of what you said is not to me to decide because those are very specific legal points and for the third time, not a lawyer.

    Section IV-A-89, at what point is it Valve’s responsibility to go after third party sites who are doing what people do in the real world? Attaching monetary value to cosmetic items in video games, I mean. Do you think the SSA obligates them to? What are the chilling effects of that? I feel like that could give corporations a lot of power, and I don’t like that.

    You know, just for the fuck of it let's say this point shouldn't be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?

    The listing of selected enforcement opens James’ case to a lot of attacks. I think it’s a failure on her part, as it will weaken the case in front of a judge if Valve’s lawyers just immediately rip it to shreds.

    You've done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?

    Section V just feels like TCG all over again.

    And? Your grand analysis stops there?

    Now the danger to children, again, if we go with this being a danger to children, then ALL TCGs are a danger to children. They open packs looking for rares, right? Same concept. But how are children getting that much access to money? That’s starting to sound like a parent problem. Who is letting their kids spend hundreds of dollars? Like, that’s just bad parenting.

    Okay, so you don't actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.

    But hey, I’m just an idiot, right? Just another Dunning-Kruger dingbat? Which is just hilarious that you keep bringing it up, misunderstanding the actual study and flaws of it. What would you say that is?

    Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I'm giving up the chance to be smart.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Bro what the actual fuck?

    What? Didn't expect an actual, quick read through of the case file, you claim to have read?

    Do you even understand what I-22 and 23 mean? There's nothing to judge, there's nothing to relate to Steam because those two points establish the definition of gambling and the law that regulates gambling. This is just laying the foundation for which the rest of the suit is built upon. At this point I don't know if you're throwing out some sort of a gotcha or if you're really that stupid to think those two points have anything to do with Steam or whether there's anything to judge.

    Dude, if you can't see how it relates, you literally can't even continue this conversation. That's how cases work. You lay out the law and prove how the plaintiff is breaking it. So, how does the law relate to Steam is a valid question that will be asked in court.

    I have no idea what you're even referencing here. Section II seems to establish who Valve is and I think does that but once again, not a lawyer, so I have no idea why it's worded the way it is. Clearly there's some reason to do it that way.

    Okay, so you have no thoughts of your own. Cool. I'm asking you to use critical thinking skills to deduce why? I asked you about the equivalence. That is the key word. Look for the comparison. If you can't, just say so, like you did, and leave it at that. Don't hide behind, "there's some reason to do it that way". Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. What does that add to the debate other than, you don't know how to debate. And you continue to engage, thus continuing the debate, so I'm a little judgemental about this.

    You're going to have to cite the source for the NY v. Nintendo of America lawsuit. Beyond that I can't comment on anything else.

    Okay, I admit fault here. I was thinking about a 1991 lawsuit that was NY v. NoA. The 1999 is several cases brought from parents against NoA that went nowhere. Here

    Of course it does seem like a stretch to you and according to you it's the same argument to the lawsuit that you haven't cited, so I can't comment anything about that. As for the rest, once again not a lawyer, so it's not up to me define when the system closes. I can only give my dumbfuck opinion which is that the system is closed when there's no official way to get monetary value out of the system. You can only dump money into the system but you can't get it out. And what is a fair comparison? 87 explains how CS skins are used as an investment, there's nothing to compare. The rest of what you said is not to me to decide because those are very specific legal points and for the third time, not a lawyer.

    So, "You can only dump money into the system but you can't get it out". Where is the limit on can't get it out? At what level of extra steps does it become, "can't get it out"?Because there will always be a way to sell the skins for cash outside the market. That's the whole point here. No, it's not for you to decide, but the people deciding have opinions that may contradict the AG; especially if it gets to jury. So, why have you been acting like James' suit is without fault? I'm pointing out faults and you're hiding behind, I don't know enough and I'm not a lawyer; to prevent having an actual opinion. That's all I'm doing is playing Plaintiff. If you don't want to play Prosecution, then stop playing.

    You know, just for the fuck of it let's say this point shouldn't be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?

    Again, that's the insulating layer protecting Valve. It is literally the crux of the three cause case against Valve. They have to satisfy all three causes to win. Valve just has prove the third one wrong. Because that's the insulating layer. Dude, like, how many times have I made this point?

    You've done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?

    Oh, buddy. You said you read the case, so I got tired and thought you could use your intelligence to look it up. Should've been easy. But daddy can do it for you. It won't take a minute. Section IV-A-90. The fact that it was three lines down from my last point is hilarious that you couldn't be bothered. Though, of course, you have no thoughts of your own. You are such a lazybones.

    And? Your grand analysis stops there?

    I mean, yeah. It's a point I've made multiple times.

    Okay, so you don't actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.

    And your counter has convinced me. Great job. Why don't you read this study from 2003? It might enlighten you why TCGs are a big point from me. But you won't, because you are a lazybones.

    Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I'm giving up the chance to be smart.

    "In other words, not only is the Dunning-Kruger effect not merely a statistical artifact at the group level, it also cannot be explained solely by Bayesian shrinkage in the rational estimations of individual participants.” Source That's a recent study from 2021. Feel free to read about it. Or don't, I don't give a shit, mate. I'm just here to have fun.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Can't even bother to link the right lawsuit the rest of your arguments hinge on. Good job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Did you read the link? Did you try at all? I'm willing to admit a mistake, can you not?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    First of all, that is not the lawsuit. That's an article about the lawsuit, something you criticized me for (unfoundedly I might add). And secondly, the lawsuit you referenced was NY v. NoA not whatever lawsuit that article reference because that seems something that was filed in 1999 not 1991 like you claim. Ready to admit your mistake?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    The mistake was calling it NY v NoA. It was a civil suit brought by parents. One of many, that ultimately went nowhere. That's the only proof I have to attest to my actual memory of those events happening. Sorry, I don't have the individual case files. I'll go looking for them. But dismissed cases are hard to find without knowing the docket info.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You don't have to go find it. I think we've done enough to prove my point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    There it is. Trying to exit the debate without addressing the topics. Your relationships in life must be difficult ;)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I told you before I'm not going to get into this moronic conversation where neither of us know what we're talking about. Not only did you prove that you want to steer the conversation into that idiocracy you also proved that you don't know what you're talking about. And that was my point, that you can't refute the argument presented in the lawsuit because you keep talking out of your ass and there's no hope of changing your opinion on the matter because you're not interested in any discussion except the one where you get to talk out of your ass. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Are you disputing a lawsuit even existed? What specifically about my 1999 NYT article verifying my claim of a lawsuit in 1999 against NoA with allegations of gambling. I think it was RICO specifically in that case, but like that's just law stuff.

    You keep saying I'm talking out of my ass, but you haven't disproven my points. You're continuing to reply, which means you definitely are invested in this, because you are refusing to admit that you got in too deep with someone who knew too much. So now, the only thing you can do is say we both know nothing. So that way, we are equal. Why are you doing that? I'm sure there are plenty of things you have more knowledge than me in. Just because I'm not a lawyer, does not inherently mean I do not know law. You do realize anybody can pick up textbooks, case studies, and e-mail professors with questions? Like, I don't have to have a degree to know what I'm talking about. I just need knowledge.

    You're just not good at this, are you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent