View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
J Dogg Administrator
Joined: 16 Jan 2002 Location: Sunnyvale, CA |
0. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:58 am Post subject: The Case Against Roxor, Part 2 |
|
|
Our legal analyst, Lost_Sage, has once again contributed an article explaining the new developments in the Konami v Roxor case. He explains a lot of the legal terminology in the case and tells us what to expect in the future. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
snickers1127â¶â Trick Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: Redding/Stockton, CA |
1. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanx for the explanation! _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
gay dentist Trick Member
Joined: 21 May 2005 Location: Twin Cities Area, Minnesota |
2. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is getting old...
Ohh second post!!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MrChuckles Trick Member
Joined: 05 Sep 2003 Location: Almost Heaven |
3. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the quick glancing I've done at the documents and the analysis, Roxor seems to have a fairly decent case. _________________
Miss the Today show segment on NBC? My site is mirroring for your viewing pleasure:
Clickey-Clickey! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PedanticOmbudsman Trick Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Location: Fayetteville, AR |
4. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's very biased and unfair to call this series of articles "The Case Against RoXoR". Could it not have been called "Konami's Lawsuit Against RoXoR" or "Konami vs RoXoR Explained" or something? The current title makes it seem like the author is siding with Konami and arguing their case for them, even if that's not the impression one gets from the article itself.
Also, don't forget that now that Konami has been countersued, it could just as easily be called "The Case Against Konami" instead, or, to be comprehensive, "Konami's Case Against RoXoR and RoXoR's Case Against Konami" or "Konami and RoXoR's Respective Cases Against Each Other". Or just "Konami vs RoXoR vs Konami" or something.
DDRFreak (despite the name) often seems to want to be taken seriously as a reputable, unbiased news source covering the entire dance-gaming genre (regardless who what companies the games come from), which is good. But "taking sides" by publishing biased-sounding article titles subverts the credibility it's gained as a neutral source and ultimately might lead many to conclude (wrongly, I hope) that this is just a Konami fanboy site. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
5. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PedanticOmbudsman wrote: | I think it's very biased and unfair to call this series of articles "The Case Against RoXoR". Could it not have been called "Konami's Lawsuit Against RoXoR" or "Konami vs RoXoR Explained" or something? The current title makes it seem like the author is siding with Konami and arguing their case for them, even if that's not the impression one gets from the article itself.
Also, don't forget that now that Konami has been countersued, it could just as easily be called "The Case Against Konami" instead, or, to be comprehensive, "Konami's Case Against RoXoR and RoXoR's Case Against Konami" or "Konami and RoXoR's Respective Cases Against Each Other". Or just "Konami vs RoXoR vs Konami" or something.
DDRFreak (despite the name) often seems to want to be taken seriously as a reputable, unbiased news source covering the entire dance-gaming genre (regardless who what companies the games come from), which is good. But "taking sides" by publishing biased-sounding article titles subverts the credibility it's gained as a neutral source and ultimately might lead many to conclude (wrongly, I hope) that this is just a Konami fanboy site. | An interesting point, but considering that the legal squabble would never have happened if Roxor had not taken actions (making ITG, etc), you could make a pure logical argument that they are the instigators, regardless of the ethical/moral value of their actions.
It's all down to your own personal opinions as to whether the statement "The case against Roxor" means that they're the underdogs or the offenders. The original case *was* indeed against Roxor, and despite the countersuit, it is still titled "Konami v. Roxor et al". _________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
J Dogg Administrator
Joined: 16 Jan 2002 Location: Sunnyvale, CA |
6. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PedanticOmbudsman wrote: | I think it's very biased and unfair to call this series of articles "The Case Against RoXoR". Could it not have been called "Konami's Lawsuit Against RoXoR" or "Konami vs RoXoR Explained" or something? The current title makes it seem like the author is siding with Konami and arguing their case for them, even if that's not the impression one gets from the article itself. |
It *is* a case against Roxor... it's Konami v Roxor. The case is against Roxor. I don't see how that's biased. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yeehaw McKickass Contributor
Joined: 06 Oct 2002 Location: Chicago Area |
7. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We should all be glad we have Lost_Sage around to bring all these documents down to a common level and explain why things are going the way they're going with this case.
Plus us Shane's are sexy beasts when it comes to writing stuff _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Thomas Hobbes Trick Member
Joined: 20 Aug 2002 Location: San Francisco // NorCal |
8. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
J Dogg wrote: | PedanticOmbudsman wrote: | I think it's very biased and unfair to call this series of articles "The Case Against RoXoR". Could it not have been called "Konami's Lawsuit Against RoXoR" or "Konami vs RoXoR Explained" or something? The current title makes it seem like the author is siding with Konami and arguing their case for them, even if that's not the impression one gets from the article itself. |
It *is* a case against Roxor... it's Konami v Roxor. The case is against Roxor. I don't see how that's biased. |
I find it clearly objective. Oh and I thank Lost Sage for all the information about the second round of information that has surfaced regarding this case.
;D Awesome stuff. _________________
"I am about to take my last voyage, a great leap in the dark."
| Pics | Play-Asia | |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DragonWolf_ Trick Member
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
|
9. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks a lot for what you are doing.
I hope to see more of these in the future. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PBoy227 Trick Member
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: Medford, Oregon, USA |
10. Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you!!!
Now we don't have to worry (to much) about people saying "Roxor is so stupid!!! Why are they doing this when they know they're gonna lose? " _________________
Call it DDR! Call it ITG! Either way, it still taste like chicken.
Konami created it (DDR), RoXoR perfected it (ITG), and we should all respect them equally. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ãã©ã¤ã¢ã³ Trick Member
Joined: 20 Sep 2003 Location: Allendale, MI / Grand Valley State University |
11. Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the translation! _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kimone tf Trick Member
Joined: 26 Aug 2002 Location: Adelaide, Australia |
12. Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for that. Very informative and not bias at all. (which is good because atm we still don't know who's in the wrong, strictly speaking, until the legal system sorts that out for us)
NOW! I'd like to see a similar run down of the Konami vs Andamiro case and how these two cases differ in allegations. That'd be interesting...
Also, if this gets all the way to the Jury making a decision is there any way it can be taken further or appealed? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PedanticOmbudsman Trick Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Location: Fayetteville, AR |
13. Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
J Dogg wrote: | It *is* a case against Roxor... it's Konami v Roxor. The case is against Roxor. I don't see how that's biased. |
First, you overlook the fact that Konami is also being sued.
It's a case against Konami as well.
Also, by publishing an article with the title "The Case Against RoXoR", you really sound like you're taking Konami's side, because it implies that you believe they have a case against RoXoR. Remember, in common usage, "case" is not the same thing as "lawsuit". Everyone will agree that Konami has a lawsuit against RoXoR but not everyone will agree they have a case.
Furthermore, the article title suggests that the article is the case against RoXoR. This is not true. If you absolutely HAVE to use "case against RoXoR" in the title, you could have at least called it "An Analysis of the Case against RoXoR" or "A Critique of the Case Against RoXoR".
Furthermore, there's a long literary tradition of articles and books with titles in the format of "The Case Against X". A person who is familiar with this tradition recognizes the similarities between all of these articles and books.
For example, take a look at these:
The Case Against Circumcision
The Case Against God
The Case Against Darwin
The Case Against the Death Penalty
The Case Against Gun Control
The Case Against Block Scheduling
The Case Against Bilingual Education
The Case Against War
The Case Against School Prayer
The Case Against Affirmative Action
The Case Against Wal-Mart
The Case Against Indoor Tanning
The Case Against Software Patents
The Case Against Micropayments
The Case Against Judaism
The Case Against Bill Clinton
The Case Against Hillary Clinton
The Case Against Monkey Brain Research
The Case Against 'Grand Theft Auto'
The Case Against Cluster Bombs
The Case Against Helping the Poor
The Case Against Hell
The Case Against a Higher Minimum Wage
The Case Against Meat
etc etc etc
Now, what do all these articles and books have in common?
1. NONE of them are analyses of court cases, explanations of lawsuits, or anything of the sort. "Case" is used in an entirely different way.
2. The author of each of the books and articles is actually against the subject of the article. That's the whole point. The author of The Case Against Circumcision is obviously against circumcision, the author of The Case Against God does not believe in her, the author of The Case Against Wal-Mart doesn't want you to shop there, and the author of The Case Against Hillary Clinton probably won't be voting for her in 2008.
Basically, "The Case Against RoXoR" is a poorly-chosen title for this article. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yeehaw McKickass Contributor
Joined: 06 Oct 2002 Location: Chicago Area |
14. Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
PedanticOmbudsman wrote: | J Dogg wrote: | It *is* a case against Roxor... it's Konami v Roxor. The case is against Roxor. I don't see how that's biased. |
ARGUING, LOUD WORDS, COMPLAINTS OVER SOMETHING MINOR! |
Here's another reason it's called, "The Case Against Roxor, Part 2":
The first article Lost_Sage Posted was called, "The Case Against Roxor". IIRC (which I do), this was done before any countersuing or oders for discovery. This means one thing, when the series started the case was entierly against RoXoR. This recent post is a continuation of that first post so leaving the title and adding "Part 2" implies a SERIES OF ARTICLES regardless.
Would you prefer the whole series be renamed "Electric Courtroom Dance Breakdown: x mix?". I hope not, because that's a retarded name and I should go shoot myself for coming up with it. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
PedanticOmbudsman Trick Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Location: Fayetteville, AR |
15. Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Way to completely ignore the arguments, son. I'm proud of you. You could have a future in politics. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cutriss Staff Member
Joined: 24 Jan 2002
|
16. Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
PedanticOmbudsman wrote: | Way to completely ignore the arguments, son. I'm proud of you. You could have a future in politics. | You know, for all the times I hear people say that DDR fanboys needlessly bash ITG (which I can't substantiate on my own), I hear a lot more of ITG fanboys making mountains out of molehills.
Your sig is easily an illustration of how independent your own concerns are. _________________
Sentient Mode is capable... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Edible Bondage Tape Trick Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2002 Location: Kerri |
17. Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
all things concidered he is deffenatly living up to his user name _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yeehaw McKickass Contributor
Joined: 06 Oct 2002 Location: Chicago Area |
18. Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PedanticOmbudsman wrote: | Way to completely ignore the arguments, son. I'm proud of you. You could have a future in politics. |
I read and understand your arguments. They make sense, but have no bearing on my point.
You'll be seeing a PM from me soon, but before I do that.
You're barking up the wrong tree with JDogg and Cutriss, if you have concerns about the title of the article, take it up with Lost_Sage in a PM. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lost_Sage Trick Member
Joined: 12 May 2002 Location: Atherton, CA -- New York, NY |
19. Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pedantic:
I appreciate your opinion. But the mods mostly have it right -- the title is completely based on who is plaintiff and who is defendant in this case, and, frankly, nothing more.
Hopefully the actual content of the article and its predecessor proves that I'm not in a hurry to dismiss one side or the other. To do so would be a disservice to my legal education. Essentially, J Dogg had asked to me explain what's going on procedurally in the case - the mechanics of the litigation process, and the fundamentals about how claims are brought.
Again, in keeping with that theme, the title reflects the mechanics of the lawsuit who sued whom first. You learn very quickly in civil procedure that all sorts of fun things like counterclaims and crossclaims quickly turn that seemingly simply perspective of the case upside down. Presumably, that's exactly where I come in. So I believe the comparison to other "The Case Against" works is a little simplistic in that regard.
All longhand for saying don't judge a book by its cover -- or here, an article, by its title. If readers want to assume, dismiss, or otherwise prejudge the content of the article simply by looking at the headlines, well, folks, this is America -- your choice. You can read USA Today -- a journalistic publication entirely premised on that shortcut -- if that's your decision. :<)
Title frenzy is a reader phenomenon with which all authors eventually, to keep themselves sane, must learn to live. (I could tell you how many times as a college journalist my title ideas were nixed, but we don't have all night to count.) People will read whatever intent they want to into the title without seriously examining the content -- and sadly, analogous reasoning justifies far worse prejudice in this world. _________________
- Sage
Last edited by Lost_Sage on Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|