Usually the terms of such settlements involve both parties agreeing not to discuss the terms themselves and indeed the case. So I wonder how much Marc Woebegone is going to go around babbling about this case.

I don’t view the settlement as a positive outcome, but it’s not a win for Bragg, although it’s a loss for all of us, and for LL, and for morality and legality in general.

Still, his outrageous gambit is not vindicated in any way, as it did not lead to a judgement in a court of law, thank God.

His actions are not declared lawful.
They are not recognized as lawful by any court.

There is merely a settlement of the case out of court.

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/10/linde-lab-caves.html

I do have to wonder — what kind of person or company would hire a lawyer who would start a frivilous and harassing lawsuit, make constant outrageous comments about it to the media, bully and harass bloggers and reporters who comment on the case, make a spoof site of a critical blogger’s site to harass them, call people who disagree with the outcome “a big butt” and go around smugly saying “I won, I told you so” — when it’s merely a settlement?

Would anyone hire such a lawyer?

I can now answer my own question. I guess one would pour thousands of dollars into an exploitative scheme, and forfeit their investment, if a secondary goal was to lay the foundation for a law suit.

Fun game hey?

Next up: libel suits. Yippee!!!!

http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-08-2006/0004356685&EDATE=

‘Bragg learned of a way to purchase virtual land significantly below market values, and invested thousands of US dollars purchasing land in an attempt to resell this land at a profit.’ – quote from Marc’s press release in May 2006. My apologies for re-quoting this as I had done in a post on Marc’s blog, but I think it’s important to be clear about the intent of the initial action.

A read of the TOS sections 1.4 (currency), 3.3 (ownership of data), and 2.6 (termination of account) indicates that a) everything in a resident’s account is owned by LL, not the resident; and b) a resident’s account can be shut down for any reason and for no reason. One becomes a Second Life resident after accepting those conditions.

If those TOS sections were in place at the time, why would one pour thousands of US dollars into a virtual land profit scheme, which relied on an exploit for said profitability, ensuingly running the risk of forfeiting everything in that (LL owned) account?

When I see Marc frequently referring to a ‘game’ – is this meant in the sense that ‘life is a game’, or more specifically a game-like business approach to profiting using all available means? Is the game ‘I am running the risk of losing thousands of dollars on this investment’? Or am I reading too much into it, and Marc is simply referring to ‘Second Life’ as a ‘game’? I don’t mean for these questions to sound facetious, as I do realise folks interpret SL in many different ways.

Peace

“Win”? Ur ridiculous.

M

Prokofy’s a great example since her nasty, foul-mouthed behavior ruined her reputation for the rest of her life. First and Second.

Losing it gracefully by dropping the immoral and unlawful part of your claims — especially if you can at least win on the narrow point of the right to reclaim that part of your wealth unjustly seized — won’t help your reputation any, but it will be a good thing for Second Life that will at least be conceded to you.

It’s your choice how you would like to go down in history.

M

Why are you always so intentionally ignorant? You are so foolish to think that I will “lose” this csae…. simply not going to happen. What will happen will be a good result for eveyrone as it has already been proven to be; even good for you though you rattle and babble incessantly about how its all the end of the world…. and such a little world it is too that you parade around.

Marc