He's actually suing LL?!?

Sounds to me like he found an exploit and LL slapped his hand for it. Now he wants a waaambulance.

I give this one a .001 chance of getting off the ground.

Comment:

I'm just reading along here, but this particular post made me think. Where in the world - the real world - would this sort of thing be allowed?

I mean, what company in the real world is entitled to take a person's money - just shut off their account and take whatever is in it - with no reason given, no recourse, nothing, whenever they want to? Even if they catch a shoplifter or a bank fraud, they aren't entitled just to help themselves to all the person's money in their account, and refuse to discuss it.

You jest, Sir.
And that is exactly what he tried to do here. Unfortunately for him, LL does not subscribe to due process within Second Life, but is instead the prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. And he was executed, within the virtual world.

I think it would not help us if we underestimated one person like Bragg.

From my dealings, observations and conversations with his avatar I received impression that he approach Second Life very systematic. While he quickly invested thousands of US$ into land and other ventures in SL, it still all seemed like the systematic exploration. He did not seem to act like normal SL business person or somebody who seriously try to build the career in SL land, malls or rental. It more was like somebody who was willing to invest (and loose) huge US$ amounts just to learn how the business and the economy works.

What's more, he seemed to be looking for some law case for some longer while now. There have been legal threats from him towards Linden Lab about really small and far fetched things in the past already. Personally, I really get impression that he has come to SL to study this new economy with the intend to find the method to further his legal career.

We should be seriously worry now. Of course the case he bring up here is weak and I don't see how he could win it, even by pull the strangest legal trick in the complicated law system in America. But this may just be the door opening for bring SL to attention of courts and regulators. And no matter what the outcome, he may position himself as the lawyer who challenge Linden Lab and bring "legal clarification" to what he call the "wild west".

Imagine what this could do to the dynamic and innovation speed of the SL economy and the culture of freedom and creativity, if every feature, every transaction and whatever Lindens or residents do must constantly be defend against some "interested" lawyers.

Don't estimate Bragg, it may be that he is one very rational and carefully calculating individual. He may not need to win this case or receive compensation to achieve what he is actually seeking. Take note of the press release and prominent featuring on his law firm's website. You don't need press release if you just seek the justice in court.

Yep, but it wasn't entirely LL's fault. I bet it was a miscommunication error with a Linden, but I believe I asked about this in-world to a Linden a while ago and they (the Linden) said that it would be ok. I'm thinking they didn't really understand how it was possible to do it, and just said that it would be ok since it was possible.

You're much, MUCH more likely to get a reporter to respond if you contact them directly and put that press release in their hot little hand/in box/fax machine. Simply putting it on PR Wire and hoping that someone will pick it up? Not so much.

If that's the case, then it sounds like he may actually have a pretty solid legal ground for this lawsuit. If a Linden told him that finding an auction in that manner was okay, then he can claim he was compelled to enter the sim purchase contract through what is known as "officially induced error" and can claim damages for the difference between the selling price ($1) and what he could have reasonably expected to make in profit from reselling.

Back to the subject, I agree with many that that this guy's attempt to exploit the auction queue so he could make a profit off LL's loss was rather immoral. If for some reason this guy wins and retains his land/account through some miscarriage of justice loophole, I hope the court rulings would provide disclosure as to who this person is, and the what land he stole so I could be sure to avoid transactions with said person, as well as estate dealings in said land.

So, LL tells this guy it's okay to find an auction by entering the (publicly available) auction ID into the URL. He does that, and wins a couple of auctions. Now, instead of fulfilling their end of the bargain, LL boots the guy so they can sell the same sims for over $1,000 more than the original purchaser paid for each of them.

LL making a profit of several thousand extra dollars off this guy's loss and their severely unbalanced TOS clause allowing them to ban and expropriate all your SL possessions doesn't seem immoral to you?

At the very least, LL's developers and customer service people exhibited glaring incompetence that has allowed this situation to come about. If they had integrity, they would admit that and settle with the guy.

I don't have the facts on what a Linden told him, this is just what a Linden told me when I asked about it a while back. It was in an IM, like I said, in-world, so they probably did not have time to check on it. They might have assumed I was talking about the main auction page error where it shows a sim for $0 (No, Torley, that was a seperate question to you a while back ).

Yep, but it wasn't entirely LL's fault. I bet it was a miscommunication error with a Linden, but I believe I asked about this in-world to a Linden a while ago and they (the Linden) said that it would be ok. I'm thinking they didn't really understand how it was possible to do it, and just said that it would be ok since it was possible.

If a Linden told *you* that, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have told *him* the same thing...

So, LL tells this guy it's okay to find an auction by entering the (publicly available) auction ID into the URL. He does that, and wins a couple of auctions. Now, instead of fulfilling their end of the bargain, LL boots the guy so they can sell the same sims for over $1,000 more than the original purchaser paid for each of them.

LL making a profit of several thousand extra dollars off this guy's loss and their severely unbalanced TOS clause allowing them to ban and expropriate all your SL possessions doesn't seem immoral to you?

At the very least, LL's developers and customer service people exhibited glaring incompetence that has allowed this situation to come about. If they had integrity, they would admit that and settle with the guy.

Please, you have to be joking with this? The min bid for new sims is ALWAYS $1000. The fact that he was able to start an auction early wasn't intended and he clearly knew that. It's fraud plain and simple and I can't believe you're trying to justify it.

If I leave my front door unlocked while I go away on vacation for a week, clearly a stupid thing to do, does that give someone the right to steal my things because I was too stupid to forget to lock the door?

Please, you have to be joking with this? The min bid for new sims is ALWAYS $1000. The fact that he was able to start an auction early wasn't intended and he clearly knew that. It's fraud plain and simple and I can't believe you're trying to justify it.

If I leave my front door unlocked while I go away on vacation for a week, clearly a stupid thing to do, does that give someone the right to steal my things because I was too stupid to forget to lock the door?

Apparently the minimum bid isn't always $1,000, since this guy (and several others) was able to get to an auction page, bid $1, and win the auction.

Your "front door unlocked" argument is a complete red herring -- theft is always theft. This situation is a breach of contract -- it's more like you offering a $20 reward for your lost dog, me finding your dog and bringing him to your house. I find the door unlocked with a $20 on the kitchen table. I take the $20 and leave the dog. Then you get mad at me for taking the $20 because you weren't ready to pay me the reward yet.

Apparently the minimum bid isn't always $1,000, since this guy (and several others) was able to get to an auction page, bid $1, and win the auction.

Your "front door unlocked" argument is a complete red herring -- theft is always theft. This situation is a breach of contract -- it's more like you offering a $20 reward for your lost dog, me finding your dog and bringing him to your house. I find the door unlocked with a $20 on the kitchen table. I take the $20 and leave the dog. Then you get mad at me for taking the $20 because you weren't ready to pay me the reward yet.

More like them offering a reward of $1, and you find 10 $100 bills and take those instead.

It's a manual process, so it has to get set to $1000 before it goes to the main auction page.

So, LL tells this guy it's okay to find an auction by entering the (publicly available) auction ID into the URL. He does that, and wins a couple of auctions. Now, instead of fulfilling their end of the bargain, LL boots the guy so they can sell the same sims for over $1,000 more than the original purchaser paid for each of them.

LL making a profit of several thousand extra dollars off this guy's loss and their severely unbalanced TOS clause allowing them to ban and expropriate all your SL possessions doesn't seem immoral to you?

At the very least, LL's developers and customer service people exhibited glaring incompetence that has allowed this situation to come about. If they had integrity, they would admit that and settle with the guy.

Yep, but it wasn't entirely LL's fault. I bet it was a miscommunication error with a Linden, but I believe I asked about this in-world to a Linden a while ago and they (the Linden) said that it would be ok. I'm thinking they didn't really understand how it was possible to do it, and just said that it would be ok since it was possible.

Apparently the minimum bid isn't always $1,000, since this guy (and several others) was able to get to an auction page, bid $1, and win the auction.

Your "front door unlocked" argument is a complete red herring -- theft is always theft. This situation is a breach of contract -- it's more like you offering a $20 reward for your lost dog, me finding your dog and bringing him to your house. I find the door unlocked with a $20 on the kitchen table. I take the $20 and leave the dog. Then you get mad at me for taking the $20 because you weren't ready to pay me the reward yet.