Good idea.

Better idea.

While I totally agree with the sentiment, I feel compelled to point out that what you and I might view as a never-ending torrent of crap from both Hollywood and most of the gaming industry, others view as a wonderful rainbow tinged cascade of entertainment.

Of course they're wrong and we're right. Right?

The claim you quote is also sounding distinctly like the WiiMote. I assume they're fairly sure the WiiMote does infring upon all claims or they'll be wasting their time and money here eh?

Congratulations, you read the title of the patent and jumped on the word "absolute". Patents are actually about the Claims, and if you'd like to skip down to there you'll see that the WiiMote does appear to infringe on Claim 1, at least.

Depends, he may have wanted you to evaluate his agreement before he increased it.

That's just your opinion. Don't confuse it with fact. You cite a few specific examples, but that doesn't make for a convincing argument. I can happily counter you with an anecdote of my own.

I spent a few pounds sterling on some in-game items for Team Fortress 2; some gifts that could be dished out to random players on the community server I play at. It was an event night, lots of people spread across the multiple servers, lots of gifts flying around, lots of fun and enjoyment being had. The small amount of money I spent on in game items hopefully brought a smile to a few people's faces, and definitely gave me a bit of a pleasure at giving something back to the community I enjoyed being part of. The fact that some actual cash had been expended to make this happen gave a bit of meaning to the act. If gift items were totally free there'd be no point.

Please explain how this translates, in any way, to microtransactions being inherently immoral.

Well done Sir. I was poised to add to the several people below who have already replied to point out your error, but then I decided to read your post all the way through to the end. Truely an impressive example of comedy online nerd-baiting.

I would have bought Driver 4 if it were published by a company that took a sane approach to DRM. The whole constant online check thing they slapped on games a few months back was enough to pursuade me never to spend any money on their products ever again. Another case where pirates get all the benefits and real customers get screwed. Unlike many /. users though, I refuse to take the immoral choice of pirating it. Not only is it wrong, I simply refuse to contribute to any "statistics" that the likes of Ubisoft use as a weapon to beat customers over the head with while taking their money.

This may be a stupid question, but isn't that accomplished by the lawsuit? Or are you implying that they should contest it in some other fashion? Contrary to popular opinion, a lawsuit is not always a middle finger extended to the accused. It can simply be a "we need to defend this and this is how the legal system dictates our defence should proceed".

I do so love feeding trolls so here goes. Ahem...

The gun was planted you say? How intriguing! I assume you have some evidence to back up your wild (and libellous) claim? Something that overrides the statement from a local, and those of friends where they state that he carried a gun for "protection"? No? Ah well, hopefully no-one in the police reads that and presses charges.

Oh what a load of crap. You're seriously suggesting that for the average person on the street the British government is as oppressed as some of those in the Middle East? You also (incorrectly) assume that this was about challenging the government. The looters and rioters who were interviewed on TV, and who have given statements in court, have had surprisingly little to say (i.e. absolutely nothing) about their motivations other than "I wanted things for free so I took them". Save yourself some time and don't bother posting several paragraphs below ridiculous hyperbole. People stop reading at that point.

Correct, and if you asked the British public to define it the vast majority would agree that 99% of what was happening wasn't politically motivated in any way. If you somehow managed to get a fair and unbiased (i.e. convinced people they wouldn't be killed/beaten for speaking the truth) opinion from those under the rule of Mubarak they'd be the opposite, sure that the popultion at large were dissenting because of horrific oppression. Don't spout platitudes like "one man's freedom fighter......" without actually thinking about it. The people ritoing in Britain were not freedom fighters or anything like that. They were not motivated by anything other than greed and criminality. Nothing noble about it. And yes, I'm sure there was criminality during the Egyptian riots, but the difference there, one you've so conveniently ignored, was that there was a hell of a lot more people who were actually protesting about the government and the ruling elite.

Don't cheapen this debate by trying to draw sensationalist parallels between things that are just not the same.

Sorry but I'm calling bullshit. Looting because you want free shit is not in any way like rioting for a political reason. Burning down a furniture warehouse because you're looking for a thrill is not like organising a violent protest because you, your family and your community are harshly oppressed on a day to day basis. You've drawn comparisons between things that just aren't the same. I'm assuming you're not British and your media spent less time on this than mine did. If you'd seen the interviews with the looters, heard the shit coming out of these people's mouths and seen what they were doing, instead of leaping upon the opportunity to draw frankly laughable parallels between the British government and the horrific dictatorship of Mugabe, then perhaps you wouldn't make such a ridiculous statement. But hey, it got modded up right so it must be correct? Right.....?