Linden Labs Losing War On Customers.

Just trolling the usual sites I frequent tonight and found some interesting news. and yes, it classifies as an 'Event' due to the series of events that it will throw into motion. Enjoy! =D

"In a decision that could have far-reaching implications, a federal court in Pennsylvania has held that the California arbitration clause in the 'take it or leave it' clickwrap agreement on the Second Life website is unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable. In its decision (pdf) in Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., No. 06-4925 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2007), the Court concluded that the Second Life 'terms of service' seek to impose a one-sided dispute resolution scheme that tilts unfairly, 'in almost all situations,' in Second Life's favor. As a result, the case will stay in Pennsylvania federal court, instead of being transferred to an arbitration forum in California."

I don't really see why people didn't expect this would happen in advance. Those clauses just lead to some delay but it's hard to enforce them. That's an entirely different thing than winning a trial. It was clear at the time that the Bragg at knew that he was exploiting a bug. Any sane person could see that. So even if it stays in Pensylvania it shouldn't be all that hard to win the case (for LL). Off course legal systems work in strange ways at many times.

hehe... I read the thread title and thought to myself "No, they are winning the war against customers" I guess it depends on which war on customers you are referring to

More usefully, here's the whole Slashdot article and comments thread for Samuel's post, with links to the judgement etc.

For those who don't follow Slashdot, the submitter "NewYorkCountryLawyer" is as his name implies. He and his company do a huge amount of work defending people against the borderline-legal methods/extortion of the RIAA. Articles on his Recording Industry vs The People webite like this How the RIAA Litigation Process Works are quite eye-opening.

It's a pity that LL lawyers have decided to stand on the wrong side of customer rights with their Terms of Service. That issue is quite unrelated to the details of this specific case, which has its own oddities. In the general case, as a protection for all of its subscribers, LL's ToS should be massively more balanced, as the judge clearly indicated.

Morg.