SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A class-action lawsuit involving Microsoft's Xbox 360 console has been appealed to the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court will decide whether Microsoft must face a class-action lawsuit that claims a defect in the media giant's popular Xbox 360 console was prone to scratching game discs, rendering them unplayable.
The lawsuit alleges that vibrations or small movements of the console might cause the optical drive to scratch discs. The suit accuses Microsoft of knowing about the alleged issue before the Xbox 360 launched in 2005. According to the original lawsuit, brought in 2012, there were as many as 55,000 complaints about the scratching issue by as early as 2008.
Compared to individual suits, class action suits are much more costly to fend off and they expose companies to far greater damage awards. The Supreme Court justices did not say when they would hear Microsoft's appeal of a federal appellate court's decision (PDF) allowing the class action to go forward. But in a one-sentence note attached to an order Friday, the Supreme Court said it would focus on whether the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals—the federal appeals court that ordered the class-action to proceed—had the legal authority to review a lower court's decision nullifying the class.
Alternate coverage at Motherboard and Courthouse News Service.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 18 2016, @06:43PM
I decided to turn my system vertical while the game was running and scrittttttttttttch
lol retard
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday January 18 2016, @07:08PM
lol retard
What can I say? I learned a lesson and owned up to it. I had friends trying to talk me into taking the game back to the store for a replacement, instead I bought a new copy. If I had listened to them and the store had taken it back, I would have been passing the cost along to the store and its customers, potentially back to even you.
I was dumb when I did it, no hurt feelings there.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Funny) by Tork on Monday January 18 2016, @07:12PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 18 2016, @08:04PM
Notably though, the cost of the media is probably only 5% of the cost of the game. It's a shame they can't/don't do a 1 for 1 exchange for a $5 or so.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday January 18 2016, @08:09PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 18 2016, @10:11PM
That may well be what they think, but a simple requirement that you return the original first would surely prevent that. They could even (gasp) deputize local shops to accept the trade on the spot and let them keep half of the $5 for their trouble.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday January 19 2016, @03:31AM
Here is the *real* answer that they did not give you: "Because we can, so F.... you"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 19 2016, @06:22AM
Its actually, "Because fuck you, that's why".
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday January 18 2016, @09:46PM
Uhhh, no.
Closer to %0.5, if that. Assuming that would be 25c, that's more than plentiful for a single blank DVD in a mass production environment (retail for a blank is 20c-50c). The rest of your 5% would actually just cover shipping charges. I'm assuming they're not bothering with a retail box and printed manuals, just the reprinted DVD and a single DVD mailer in the mail.
The actual cost of duplicating your copy is well less than $1, and nothing actually prevents the game publishers from effectively selling you insurance on your disk. Or.... this is crazy talk of course.... the publishers could choose to not be evil dickheads about making backup copies of your own games.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 18 2016, @10:09PM
Yeah, I picked 5% to be extremely generous. As usual, they want to call it a license when you want to make a copy but claim it is a physical object when you want to replace the media. Whatever gets them more money at the moment.