Nintendo Sued Over Pokemon Gambling Addiction 261
Brain00666 writes "Two parents and their kids are suing Nintendo, claiming that their Pokemon cards "are turning them into pint-sized gamblers." Apparently they're asserting that they were "forced" to spend thousands of dollars to get rare cards." If they win,
I'm totally going after Wizards of the Coast ;)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:1)
Re:Uhh yeah (Score:1)
Slashdot forces me to get rare "first posts"!!! (Score:1)
there are so many things wrong here (Score:1)
2) Wizards of the Coast was just bought out by Hasbro
3) RICO isn't a civil tort, it's a federal criminal statute.
If it was an illegal gambling operation wouldn't that be for prosecutors to charge, not civil attorneys?
Re:Yes we get the point. (Score:1)
Re:About Pokemon (Score:1)
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Pokemon Gameboy game came first, which was/is a *massive* Japaneese hit. With the game, there's a red and a blue version (I hear that a new yellow one was just released, too). The goal of the game is to wander around to try to collect all the little Pokemon, and you can use them to fight other Pokemon. The game's quite fun from just the single-player I've played.
Now, the reason that there are two different colors is that they're the same game, but the pokemon are a little different. In the blue cart, some pokemon that are common in the red one are hard to find, and some aren't present at all. The big draw is that you can link up with your friends and trade pokemon. The popularity and fun of it almost certainly has to do with why it's just fun to collect things, be they cards you pay for in packs, typewriters you track down on Ebay and pay lots of money for, or just little monsters in a game you find and get for free. Of course, Nintendo could have been planning the Pokemon CCG ever since the beginning and just did the rest of the Pokemon stuff to build up hype, but I doubt it. My guess is that the CCG is just a natural progression.
"Forced"? (Score:1)
Re:/. idea (Score:1)
:)
Re:Obligitory MS crack... (Score:1)
I think Nintendo is innocent - I mean they are a lot nicer than Microsoft in this respect- the rare cards _do_ exist, while bugfree microsoft programs..
Let me just say I saw a friend of mine place a 8 of spades on a queen of hearts in windows solitaire once, and leave it at that.
Re:Slashdot forces me to get rare "first posts"!!! (Score:1)
What kind of hAX0r are you?
Re:Uhh yeah (Score:1)
No, it wouldn't. "her" implies the female gender. "he" does *not* imply gender, although something else in the context may.
English uses the same word for the masculine and for unknown gendin several contexts.
Re:There's more cool stuff about this! (Score:1)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:1)
Pedantic spelling note (Score:1)
-Mars
Re:Intresting.... (Score:1)
Unfortunately, I *think* signing up with so many would violate most of the firms' contracts... Of course, if you have enough money they'll write new contracts for you.
I do think that it would work, though! Scary. Of course, it doesn't protect you from criminal charges... And anyone can get nailed by Tax Evasion (heck, I evade all the taxes I can!
-Billy
Re:Similiar suites (same lawyers) didn't flyeither (Score:1)
:-)
-Billy
They got to be kidding (Score:1)
--
Scott Miga
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
and so it might be considered to be gambling.
After all, to use the guidelines proposed
by someone else in this channel, to setup a
lemonade stand,
there's a cost of entry
there's risk involved
there's something you get if you win (profit)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
chooses to behave suboptimally (i.e. use
bad strategy), then the results are their
responsibility. WRT Nintendo and the kids,
the kids arn't suffering -- it's the parents
money that's being spent, all because they're
giving it to their kids. Where is nintendo doing
wrong?
WRT worth, the pokemon cards arn't worthless
pieces of cardboard any more than a twenty dollar
bill is a worthless piece of green paper. Value
is based on perception.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
them to set up a lemonade stand to be wrong?
They might not earn any money. Isn't that a
gamble?
Re:Similiar suites didn't fly either (Score:1)
Re:capitalism gone mad... (Score:1)
- freehand
Re:Wish I had thought of this. (Score:1)
Yet another proof US courts are a joke (Score:1)
Before this story appeared, I thought the funniest lawsuit was the one in which a woman sued the pharmaceutical company because she ate contraceptive jelly and still got pregnant... I guess we have a new winner.
Re:Interesting, but probably not quite there. (Score:1)
WotC's Magic: the Gathering. I believe in the old 15-card boosters at one point there were 11 commons, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare per booster. Rarity is somewhat distributed equally so in a 210-card set you might have 70 rare cards. So, from just the numbers you'd hafta go through 72 packs, like 2 boxes or so, for rare card X that you oh so needed for your deck.
This was like years ago with 4th edition. Before getting rare card X was a true trial and the odds were far worse. Usually I'd go out and buy the single or trade some rather than try to get lucky.
Yet even before this, sports cards were truly notorious for this. I remember some extremely rare inserts having odds as high as 1 in a several thousand packs. Oh I remember spending at one point $20 per pack of Topps Finest to pull a Ripken that at one point was worth $20,000+. I'd prolly spend at least $20,000 before I pulled the card probably. I was probably better off playing the state's daily number drawing.
So why does this surface now somewhat shocks me and somewhat doesn't. I'm surprised because the idea or inserts and rarity of certain cards has existed for 10 years and change now. Yet I'm not that dumbfounded because nowadays you can sue for anything.
Only thing that lingers is supposedly these kids spent thousands of dollars? Where'd they get this munny, and can I have some?
Re:"Forced"? (Score:1)
"... say they were forced to empty their piggy banks to buy endless packs of low-value cards in the hope of buying a rare one.
Unless someone from WotC or NOA was holding a gun to their head or being generally threatening that's not that valid a statement.
In addition, I don't find marked cardbaord to be much of an investment. Notice the emphasis on "low-value cards". If you want value, go invest in a reliable mutual fund or buy some "pillow" stocks and sleep easy.
Wish I had thought of this. (Score:1)
Television News Says Otherwise (Score:1)
Trading cards are hardly devices for gambling. No more so than collecting comic-books, action-figures, or porcelain dolls. And even if they were gambling devices, I see an addictive vice such as gambling much more understandable than the lack of ethics and personal responsibility that is displayed by those who bring blatantly ludicrous and frivolous lawsuits to court.
Besides, what irresponsible parent is out there letting Nintendo raise their children in the first place? These are the same idiots who gladly have their children fingerprinted, bar-coded and processed.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Re:Nintendo files counter-suit (Score:1)
--
Re:Wizards of the Coast (Score:1)
matguy
Net. Admin.
Re:... (Score:1)
Re:Wizards of the Coast makes the Pokeman cards... (Score:1)
"Gotta catch 'em all!"
WoTC didn't start the fire.
But then again, I don't think there is a fire after all. Just a genius marketing blitz parents should be steering their kids away from.
Re:... (Score:1)
choking supplies to raise prices is an old trick (Score:1)
And then Hasbro bought them both. (Score:1)
Damned Beanie Babies (Score:1)
Another legal black mark (Score:1)
I think this case will be tossed out as a frivious lawsuit. Those lawyers need to heed the words of William Shatner and "get a life."
Is it really that disruptive??? (Score:1)
Seriously, I think it is because it is up to the parents to exert some distractions from the fad. Kids that age will feed on candy until either an adult stops them or they get sick. In this case, the addiction simply comes from parents who simply don't encourage their kids from being fixated on one thing.
In my area, some school principals are returning kids home if they show up at school with the cards. They claim that the cards are disruptive. While that might work in the short term, the next big fad will just come, meaning principals will have to ban the "Next Big Thing".
It is really the company's fault that the kids are addicted to the cards. I think that Nintendo has really hit the mark with their marketing strategy, but they are not solely to blame for the addictions. If parents showed more concern in their kids and would have a better solution than "buy what the kid wants so he'll/she'll shut up", the kids would benefit in the long run.
Nice Display of Chauvinism (Score:1)
Why do such things happen in the U.S. and nowhere else? First of all, it's premature to say that such things don't happen elsewhere. Second, that these things happen in the U.S. at all has more to do with the dynamics that encourage law firms to file frivolous lawsuits (hot coffee, stock prices, addictive games, etc.) and nothing to do with the character of U.S. citizens as a whole.
I'm no flag waver: I too used to think that the U.S. had a monopoly on stupid people, but your comments have given me occasion to reconsider.
Re:Beanie Babies (Score:1)
Re:A Suggestion to WOtC... (Score:1)
You want them to design better cards so they can sell fewer boxes?
This is the company that included the "foil premium cards" into Magic sets to pump the collectability back up...
Jay (=
Time to call child services. (Score:1)
I really have to say.. if the parents willingly allowed and supported their children's growing addiction to "gambling" by buying more and more trading cards, then they should probably not be the legal guardians of those children anymore.
Seriously! Sueing Nintendo for something that they funded their children in doing. Perhaps they are not aware of somethings in life: Restraint. Parenting. Love.
If they really loved their children and cared for them as parents should, they wouldn't let Pokemon do the parenting and babysitting.
Next thing you'll know, parents will be suing milk formula makers for addicting their children to their chemical mixes. Or suing the government for addicting their children to di-hydrogen oxide.
Time to call child services or parental counseling if the parents have to resort to suing companies to get more money to pay for their habit instead of correcting that habit.
- Wing
- Reap the fires of the soul.
- Harvest the passion of life.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Parental supervision is probably the best answer to this problem, but that doesn't mean that what Nintendo's doing isn't wrong, too.
It's one thing to lure adults into gambling, but kids deserve protection from this. Nintendo has an entire staff of child psychologists -- their business depends on knowing what children like. They know exactly how to manipulate kids into spending all their money on worthless pieces of cardboard. That's just not right.
Are children responsible? (Score:1)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Re: you comparison to Malibu Barbie. There is a bit of a difference. Every Malibu Barbie package contains exactly the same items. No matter how many of them you buy, you'll never find the rare hermaphroditic Barbie doll. So there's no element of gambling involved.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Because the gambler in this case is 9 years old. If the target audience were older I'd have no problem with this. Encouraging kids to gamble is just plain wrong.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Re:capitalism gone mad... (Score:1)
I bought a firearm and the owner's manual was amazing. About every other page was a warning, some of them were ridiculous.
News flash: computer programming = gambling! (Score:2)
There is the element of chance: Maybe the economy will crash? Maybe you'll flunk your courses?
You've got a prize: That cushy job is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Hell, I can claim that working under a capitalist system is gambling (and it really is, if you think about it). Many people are "addicted" to money due to their perception that they "need" as much money as possible to "win" in our society. Shall we file a class-action against every corporation in existence? Hmmm...
Not really. (Score:2)
It's all there in the article.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:Ahh, you forget... (Score:2)
Re:Addiction is fine; this is about gambling (Score:2)
Since baseball cards are a fairly well-established legal industry, I don't think this lawsuit has much of a chance.
Lawyer: It's been done, but it's not practical (Score:2)
But guess how many firms are willing to interview him now?
The problem is that there are just too many firms out there to do this with, and the amounts that they will expect for that type of retainer rule it out even for the Microsofts of the world.
Plain cold fact of life: there's about as much money to be made by being on the other side from microsoft as there is from being on microsoft's side, and it will be rather expensive to convince a major firm to give up that potential business--if most firms do it, then the firms that are left get *all* of the business on the other side.
hawk, esq.
Lawyer: a better vairation (Score:2)
My favorite scenario is to name the plaintiff's bar as a class of defendants (the "class" is not always the plaintiffs). The injury needs to be one in which a consumer did not receive an important safety warning, due to the stupid warnings placed defensively all over products (my favorite: the warning on a dry-cleaning bag that the ink used to print the warning was poisonous--with nothing printed on the bag save the warning).
Normally, winning the suit that caused the warning would be a valid defense. But many of these suits were pressed even though the manufacturor complied with laws regulating the subject, making turnabout fair play.
But it's all just a pipe dream . . .
hawk, esq.
Re:Suing for Addiction? Ha! (Score:2)
>justice system nowadays.
Not yet. If the courts fail to sanction the attorneys for filing this (which has been happening to this plaintiff's firm with increasing frequency), then it will show a dismal shape.
Re:Addiction is fine; this is about gambling (Score:2)
However, it is still possible to have to pay to play, just as it is possible for people to bet on games of Clue. It sounds silly, I know. But the point is this: Any game can be considered gambling, undr certain conditioons. Any game can also not be gambling. You do not necessarily have to pay to play Pokemon or even get packs, nor do you necessarily get any sort of prize (geez; you're telling me a small piece of cardboard is worth tons of money just because it has "Blastoise" printed on it? You're dreaming, pal).
These things only have value because people are idiotic enough to pay exorbitant sums of money for them. You're telling me a small piece of thin cardboard is worth tons of money just because it has "Blastoise" printed on it? You're dreaming, pal. Pokemon is a game. An innocent game that some people get too wrapped up in (and that can happen in any game). That's the person's own fault and no one else's.
Re:Addiction is fine; this is about gambling (Score:2)
First off, consider the case of my girlfriend. She was beginning to get interested in M:tG. though she hadn't played much. I had plenty of cards by that time, so I made her a deck and gave it to her. She did not pay to play at all. The point: Pokemon fails the first test, because it isn't always necessary to pay to play.
Yes, there's an element of chance. There's an element of chance in any game; that's why it's called a game. Even something as "innocent" as Parcheesi or Clue has elements of chance, and yet I see no one suing companies that make those. To set that up as a criterion for gambling is just plain stupid. So Pokemon would pass the second test if that test were even valid. But since it isn't, the point is moot.
And as for there being a prize: Pokemon, while it is possible to play for ante (to use the M:tG term; I don't know what Pokemon calls it) it isn't mandated. So it fails the third test ("there is a prize") because there is not always a prize.
I suppose you could say that there's an element of gambling in the buying of Pokemon card packs. But I also doubt too many people would call that a game. These kids made a stupid decision. Their parents, who could easily have put an end to it, made a very stupid decision by not doing so, thereby losing thousands of dollars. They have no one to blame for this but themselves.
Just say no! (Score:2)
Not!
The ear-to-ear grins on the mothers and the kids says it all: "We know exactly what we're doing, and we're gonna make a bundle and get famous too!"
And of course you can always get some idiot attorney to buy in to this kinda deal...
t_t_b [finchhaven.com]
--
Morons. (Score:2)
These are emblematic of the morons and idiots we have for parents here in the US that give America a bad reputation. Can't anyone take responsibility for their actions at any age whatsoever? "Oh no, little Timmy likes his (Pokemon, Magic, Upper Deck, Beanie Baby, etc.) so much that he plays games to try and win more! But he sucks enough to lose! Oh my god, I have the answer - SUE THE MANUFACTURER!"
I mean, how dumb is that? No wonder Katz spends so much time lately writing about alienated teens. Is it me, or have the parents here in the US become more and more clueless with each generation? I really hope that when my wife and I have our own kids, my brains don't get washed away like these parents' brains have.
Despite my
- -Josh Turiel
In a related story.... (Score:2)
"No matter what he's doing, he always has a tub of that ice cream in front of him." claims Smith. Reportedly, the 'Mint Chocolate Chips!®' flavor is the preferred flavor of 17 year-old Jimmy, who added: "I just like it. I don't see what the big deal is." The addictive properties on this particular flavor of ice cream have yet to be studied, as this is the first documented case. Smith insists, however, that it's far too addicting, and warrants a lawsuit.
Anne Johnson, spokesperson for Dreyer's, declined an interview, but issued a press release stating "We at Dreyer's are comitted to making the finest Ice Cream available, and we want our customers to be delighted with our products. A situation like this makes us particularly sympathetic, however we have not heard any similar complaints regarding any of our products."
"Horsesh--" says Smith. "They make this stuff addictive on purpose, so people will like it and buy more." When asked if she thought that was the point, Smith simply stated "Absolutely not." She continued: "My son comes home from school, goes to the freezer, and grabs the container. Then he sits down at the computer and spoons it into his mouth while programming. He's lazy!"
Dreyer's executives were not available for comment.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
If not, the parents are! (Score:2)
In that case, the PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE.
Read the story, which mentions the kids are around 9 years old. Where in the hell do kids get the "thousands of dollars" they were "forced" to spend? The story says they "emptied their piggy banks" but I think that's just a euphemism-- given child labor laws, I doubt these piggy banks could have contained much, and thus I bet their money came from adults.
So, why weren't the parents saying no? If the kids were turned into gambling addicts, its the parents who did it. The money burning characteristics of collectable card games notwithstanding, no one FORCES one to buy them.
And no one certainly forced the parents to allow their children so much money to do so!
Wizards of the Coast (Score:2)
If they win, I'm totally going after Wizards of the Coast ;)
If they win Wizards of the Coast won't have any money left for you to get.
From the article:
Court papers said Nintendo, along with U.S. distributor Wizards of the Coast....
This is getting nuts (Score:2)
This lawsuit stuff is getting RIDICULOUS. (Score:2)
while we're at it, lets sue the sports card manufacturers. They do the same thing.
Hell, lets sue McDonalds. Those happy meals are probably just as addictive.
How about Ty? Didn't they retire beanie babies to make them more valuable?
Maybe I should sue my ISP while I'm at it. I spend more than 5 hours a day on the Internet, which according to a recent story on Slashdot qualifies me as an addict too.
About Pokemon (Score:2)
Shades of Star Wars and its action figures!
Re:Missing the Point (Score:2)
Now okay, it is a trading card game - and trading them may be part of the fun. But who's fault is that? Does the company force anyone to pay x dollars for a card? No. Do they set the prices on the cards? No. That's where it becomes most rediculous - there are so many places to attack this article it's not even funny, but I think one of the strongest points is that the prices are set by an independant company (at least AFAIK). Back in the MtG days WotC decided how many cards to produce but didn't decide that card x would be worth y dollars; it just worked out that way.
The American Mentality: (Score:2)
I have the right to life (mine, screw yours),
I have the right to liberty (who cares about you),
and I have the right to happiness (that means I want your money, and more of your money).
Certainly, the US was not established with this in mind.
But, to paraphrase a rule from programming, build a
better form of government, and I will built a better tyrant.
The oppression of the British monoarchy caused the creation
of the US government structure to defeat the occurence
of such a situtation. Now, we have bred a new and better
replacement: the average US citizen, who is responsible
for nothing, for they 'obviously' are motivated by horrible
scars from their childhood, and so shouldn't have to account
for there own actions.
Sure, I'm a US citizen. I'm just ashamed to be one.
Apologies for not being more eloquent, it's late,
and I can't write that well.
Games companies = petty (Score:2)
Are you kidding, I'm going after my Postal company, they make the stamps and sell them after all, even releasing limited series stamps sometimes.
Or how about the government, they make all those soon to be rare coins, right?
-
/. idea (Score:2)
Re:One point that people are missing... (Score:2)
Rarity was originally tied to game utility in Magic: The Gathering with the idea of preventing players from having too many overpowered cards in their deck. As we now know (and, frankly, should have been obvious at the time), this turned the game into a contest of wallets rather than a contest of brains. Since then, WotC has introduced other counterweights to excessively powerful cards (e.g. restrictions and bans on certain cards in tournament play, introduction of new cards to defend against power cards) to tilt the game back toward skill.
It is now generally recognized that tying card rarity to card utility is a Bad Thing, and game publishers that make a habit of it get a "Billgatus of Borg" reputation in the gaming community.
In a properly designed game, the reason for making some cards rarer than others is to make it more difficult to complete an entire set.
If all cards would be equally common, they would have to be equally powerful, and that would make a hell of a boring game.
Say, does anybody know where I can get an "Ace of Spades" to complete my NuPoker deck? (I tried asking my local collector, but he just bent my ear for an hour with a story about some boring old version of poker where you automatically had one of each card in the deck.)
/.
Pokemon Hell (Score:2)
On the other hand, I found out today that a stray pokemon card that ended up in our house made a great tool for spackling the wall for painting purposes in the absence of a putty knife... "Gotta Patch 'em All!", I guess.
Re:Some information for those who don't know (Score:2)
If they win... (Score:2)
I'm gonna sue Nintendo for the pain in my thumb from 11 straight hours of Zelda-64.
Re:Interesting, but probably not quite there. (Score:2)
Is purchasing any form of collectibles gambling? Or, for that matter, shares in, say, AT&T?
One facet that might be looked at is whether there is any intrinsic value besides resale. If Mr. Gates were to speculate in cars by randomly buying luxury vehicles only to sell them like new an hour later, does that mean that buying cars should be treated as gambling since it *could* be used as such? On the other hand, there's not that much use for, say, a round at video poker other than the mathematical expectation of a (negative) reward...
Not being into Pokemon, MtG or any other card game (well, except those that involve poker decks and jokers), I'm not able to claim either way: that they're useless except as commodities to trade/sell (and thus become a variation on currency, but one that's a lot less liquid or reliable), or no. If it's the former case, then it's not that much different than buying envelopes for, say, $10 ea that each may or may not have a larger amount of money in them. Now *that* would be more clearly gambling.
Re:there are so many things wrong here (Score:2)
I remember there was a case (tossed out, methinks -- or at least hopes) where somebody tried to sue an off-shore 'Net gambling site, to annull her (considerable) losses, on the grounds that the gambling was illegal under US law. Talk about chutzpah... That's almost as good as the fellow who sued his own company for on-the-job injuries (and hired two lawyers, and so forth...)...
Re:Interesting, but probably not quite there. (Score:2)
It was something like this that got me out of the M:TG market a few years ago. If I remember correctly, WotC released a new expansion that reprinted tons of the old cards from previous expansions, and the value of those old cards dropped like a stone. My previously $2000 collection of M:TG was instantly worth about $500. I got out while the getting was good, as I think WotC continued reprinting and instituting tournament rules that made the old cards useless for most players (who play based on tourney rules).
I don't recall any lawsuits over this, just lots of grumbling, and lots of people getting out of the game. I think that it was one of the worst decisions WotC made, and led to the general reduction of interest in M:TG nowadays.
Similar baseball card class action lawsuit (Score:2)
September 11 1998
Trial Lawyers Swing for the Fences With Allegation that Baseball Cards are Dangerous to Kids [nationalcenter.org]
According to the August 11 San Diego Union Tribune, Los Angeles-based trial lawyer Henry Rossbacher has filed three class action lawsuits alleging that baseball card companies, by printing limited quantities of certain cards, are promoting gambling among children. Rossbacher says that by limiting the quantity of valuable "chase" cards, and by printing the odds of getting one of these cards on the outside of packs, card companies such as Upper Deck Co. and Pacific Trading Card Inc. have established the "functional equivalent of a lottery." His lawsuit seeks damage awards for all kids who have been lured into buying cards in the past four years.
"It's just like Joe Camel," says Rossbacher, "They're selling a dangerous product to kids."
Nintendo doesn't set the value of rares, folks (Score:2)
Ahh, you forget... (Score:2)
- dom
Nine-year olds have that much power? (Score:2)
Missing the Point (Score:3)
IN MOST STATES MOST FORMS OF GAMBLING ARE ILLEGAL. THOSE THAT ARE LEGAL ARE REGULATED AND STATE FRANCHISED.
IN ALL STATES IT IS ILLEGAL TO ENCOURAGE A CHILD TO COMMIT A CRIME.
Why do you think you have to be 18 to buy a lottery ticket? Why do you think you have to be 18 to win the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes (void where prohibited)? Why do you think you have to be 18 to win a Corvettee in a drawing at the mall?
The lawyers may be slimeballs, but buying Pokemon trading cards is little different from buying lottery tickets. You buy a card without knowing it's value, exactly like 'scratch and win' lottery tickets.
Arguing that the case has no merit because lawyers are slimy is a non-ingeniuous argument ad hominem. We might as well argue that the makers of Pokemon, Barney, and the Teletubbies all deserve the death penalty because they make ridiculous children's products and because they cause endless pain and suffering to parents everywhere.
Now you may argue that gambling shouldn't be illegal, and that the government shouldn't interfere in people's sex, social, or recreational habits, but as long as gambling is regulated, anyone who promotes a non-licensed game of chance is breaking the law, just like someone who tries to illegally sell a controlled drug is breaking the law. People who push gambling on kids are no better than people who push drugs on children.
(Editor's note: The above contains unmarked sarcasm and humor. The views represented above are not necessarily those of Anonymous Coward or AC Inc.)
Apparently, same *firm* is involved in other CCG.. (Score:3)
these kids has also filed similar suits against
Magic and other CCG (collectable card games),
and in the case of the Pokemon CCG, they found
two likely kids among several 'applicants'.
I compare this to the suit that the woman that
sued her credit card companies because she
lost $75,000 on her cards because she was
gambling illegally on the net, and they (the
credit card companies) didn't stop her.
Law suits are not supposed to make up for
human stupidity.
Here we go again... (Score:3)
It's not so much that there are 'strange' (for lack of a less offensive word) people that will do something like this, but it's like saying "Well gee, you guys make products that our kids have too much fun with. Make something dull and annoying, not fun and addictive."
Hell, maybe we should let them run the country. I wouldn't mind having a national day declared in honor of video games (I know I'm not aloneNow I don't blame the lawyers, because if I was one I'd love to handle a case like this either as prosecutor or defendant (is that the correct terminology? I don't know the last thing about the law). But parents like this seriously get to me. I've seen a mother buy a $250 coat for her kid, have him lose it, give him the same amount of money so he could buy it again, and he lost it again! Guess what-- she dished out another $250. I mean jeeze, if I ever lost my coat ONCE my mom would let me freeze to death for a good week so she would be sure I wouldn't lose the next coat! (And I love you dearly for that, mommy).
Parents have got to teach their kids lessons. It seems we're letting them do anything they want these days. And when that happens (and I know some of you will hate me for saying this, but tell me there isn't a certain degree of truth about it) you have accidents like Columbine.
Look at Tobacco Lawsuits (Score:3)
In recent history, suits against the tobacco industry have been successful, as it has been proven that there was a physiological addiction to the nicotine. However, before it was ever shown that
suits against tobacco companies were, for the most part, unsuccessful. The argument of the tobacco companies was that you bought the product, it was your choice to continue using it. However, once shown that there were physiological reasons for continued use, suits against the companies won.
These kids are addicted simply because it's fun. From the article, it looks like one of the claims of the parents/kids is that schoolmates created an environment with such peer pressure that the kids felt like they had to play, or they would be ostracized. They might as well sue the friends!
The argument of this case is entirely ridiculous. The kids could have stopped at any time. No "addiction," besides that which was artificially created by the kids' friends. Nintendo will win this one on precedent alone. It's a ridiculous case.
-David Ziegler
-dziegler@hotmail.com
... (Score:3)
--
Responsibility (Score:3)
Huh ? they aren't forced to do a damn thing. This to me looks like a case where incompetent parents are unwilling and/or unable to regulate their kid's behaviour. If they really spent thousands on these cards, what on earth were their parents doing blindly handing out small fortunes to such irresponsible children ? Geesh, they could buy a gun on the black market with that money.
Surely, if the parents think it looks like gambling, they should regulate their kid's behaviour. It doesn't appear to be unambiguously a "gambling issue" though.
Re:Uhh yeah (Score:3)
What's more interesting, to me, is that it's really the parents that are gambling, and with much bigger stakes (and longer odds). The civil justice system in the US has devolved into a lottery; people file lawsuits over the most inane things, in hopes that they win big. This is the true outrage here; that people would exploit their children to try to win a legal jackpot.
thad
Re:Addiction is fine; this is about gambling (Score:3)
-----------------------------------------------
One problem: when you play Clue, you don't have to pay every time, and you don't get money (or something of value) for winning. Your logic is flawed.
Beyond that, this lawsuit is stupid, and old ground. IANAL, but it seems to me that since no particular card has more intrinsic value than any other, the claim is invalid. Case in point: do you remember when Pepsi had the special cans that when you popped the top on them, instead of soda a $20 bill sometimes came out? Soda (purchased at $2.50 for 12 cans) was intrinsically worth a set amount of money to Pepsi, and the $20 was worth $20 (duh!) For this reason, you could get a free game piece (this is true of most contests -- "No purchase neccessary") by mail. That way it isn't gambling. Since the cards only have a value determined by what a collector is willing to pay, they aren't intrinsically more valuable than any other piece of cardboard.
Also, with the Pepsi, and with the Pokemon cards, if you do lay out your money, you will at least get what you were promised. i.e. 72 oz of soda or a bunch of trading cards. Contrast this with the lottery, where the only value in the ticket is the possibility of hitting a jackpot. By itself, a lottery ticket is a worthless piece of paper. It represents the chance of winning money.
Finally, to quote Meatloaf, "There ain't no Coupe DeVille hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box."
Intresting.... (Score:3)
If I ever get to be a billionare mogal, I'll have to remember to do this
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:Get the Laywers (Score:3)
Or even better, file a class action suit claiming that class action suits, because of their unpredictable outcomes, cost, and monetary reward, are, in fact, illegal gambling...
-
Obligitory MS crack... (Score:3)
Business managers sue Microsoft, claiming that they "were forced to spend thousands of dollars searching through box after box of products searching for the rare, bug-free programs Microsoft claims to have produced."
Abuse is common as contractors may dupe unsuspecting IT management into trading their stable, proven *nix technology for what the contractors swear are "newer, cooler" versions.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Interesting, but probably not quite there. (Score:4)
If the substance of the charges is true (that the company randomly places rarer cards in packs, that turn into commodities due to this practice), it *is* pretty close to gambling. The factor that in my mind separates it is that Nintendo is most likely making no promises whatsoever about any intrinsic value of these cards; that is determined by market economics. Unlike, say, a raffle or lottery (which promises that a winning ticket *will* be worth a specific prize, or a share of a monetary jackpot), these cards could drop in value if the company said, "You don't like rare cards? Fine. We'll publish 'em en masse, for cheap.", or if the craze simply died out.
Ya buy, what, marked cardboard? And no promises about the value of such. On the other hand, a casino had better honor its chips...
Whether or not the government should be in the business of regulating gambling -- as it does --- is somewhat of a side issue, unless Nintendo is specifically trying to challenge that doctrine.
Similiar suites didn't fly either (Score:4)
There's more cool stuff about this! (Score:5)
First of all, the lawyers doing the suing are the same folks who sue corparations when their stock goes down.
Second, it turns out that one of the corparations being sued here, 4kids, was dropped from the lawsuit because -- guess what -- their defence firm turned out to be the same firm that was doing the suing!
Those lawyers were evidently unable to check to see that the corporation that they were suing was one of their clients.
Source: Union Tribune, "Law firm sues own client." [uniontribune.com]
-Billy
... (Score:5)
Mark my words, Malda... I'm gonna make you pay for this! *g*
Seems silly? No more so than a bunch of parents suing because their kids are "addicted" to a game. Yeesh. These parents need to take responsibility - if they think there kids are addicted.. maybe they should enroll them in a Pokeamon 12 Step Program. "Hi, my name is fubar, and I'm a pokeaholic"...
--
Nintendo files counter-suit (Score:5)
Parents could not be reached at work or in their brand-new Volvos for comment.
One point that people are missing... (Score:5)
The "lottery" explanation that all the discussion seems to be centered around is missing this fundamental point.
Nintendo isn't making certain cards "rare" to pump up the market value - at least, that's not the ONLY reason, which is what the suit is implying.
Why are there rare cards? Because they are more powerful within the context of the game. If all cards would be equally common, they would have to be equally powerful, and that would make a hell of a boring game.
Yes, there is a desire to get "rare" cards. Part of it IS to impress people - but they have a legitimate use within the context of the game.
The "lottery theory" implies that Pokemon's only purpose is for money. That's not true - it's an actual game that is capitalizing on legitimate cultural trends. As with other CCGs, though, there is a sub-market for rare cards. That shouldn't be the main focus, which it has seemed to become.
Huh. (Score:5)
- dom
Addiction is fine; this is about gambling (Score:5)