Comments on: Don’t Tase Me, Linden Labs

By: Bearfoot

Bearfoot — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:39:03 +0000

And let’s just throw this in. It’s only been recently that Linden Labs actually accquired SL street.

It’s very possible they could blame the previous owners. (it’s been a matter of a few months here. Which makes me scratch my head on the timing.

By: JDKJ

JDKJ — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:02:00 +0000

@Makoto:

Under the Lanham Act, despite the fact that a defendant did not engage in conduct which directly infringes upon the rights of a trademark holder, if they knowingly engaged in conduct which materially contributes to (i.e., facilitates) the direct infringement of the trademark by another, they’re on the hook, too.

And if there is a real world handcuff product trademarked as “Silver Braclets” and a virtual seller chooses to call their virtual world handcuff product Silver Bracelets, then the trademark holder has every right to take legal action. The virtual seller can call their handcuff product anything they want — other than “Silver Braclets” or any other registered trademark.

By: Makoto Kimagawa

Makoto Kimagawa — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:06:23 +0000

I would like to know how they plan to sue Linden Labs, LL has not created these items, neither do they sell them. All they do is facilitate the transfer of goods between 3rd parties via their Asset Servers. I suppose that they could be sued for holding the items in their database but how can they put such a value to a modified set of virtual objects with various user created scripts embedded within that cause a virtual avatar to animate that they have been hit with a large electric charge. maybe the makers of police handcuffs should sue as well because there are plenty of them in the virtual world.

By: Chance Abattoir

Chance Abattoir — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:49:49 +0000

Despite over 9000 attempts by journalists to claim otherwise, there is still only one Linden Lab.

By: JDKJ

JDKJ — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:26:11 +0000

According to New World Notes, in response to request by the Lindens, the weapons formerly called “TASERs” on Second Life have now been renamed “stun-guns.”

By: JDKJ

JDKJ — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:10:59 +0000

How can a parent ever distance itself from it’s wholly-owned subsidiary? It wholly directs and controls the actions of it’s subsidiary. The subsidiary has no independent decision-making ability of it’s own. Everything move it makes, every step it takes, is 100% attributable to the parent. They’re bound to each other like Siamese twins. On what possible basis could the parent reasonably argue otherwise?

I haven’t read the Complaint, but I assume the caption lists both the real and dba entities as two separate entities (otherwise this wouldn’t even be an issue). First, as soon as the first responsive pleadings are filed, Plaintiff — unless they’re absolutely brain dead — will figure out their mistake, if for no other reason than the fact that they haven’t received a pleading from one or the other of the real and dba entities. They move to dismiss with prejudice the dba entity — which is usually how a plaintiff gets rid of an unwanted named defendant. No opposition, motion granted. Problem fixed, no need to amend their Complaint. Second, what one State would do as opposed to another State, don’t matter. Plaintiff is in federal court where the FRCP controls and applies with equal forces across all States. Whether State A or State B don’t make no difference.

By: Gwyddia

Gwyddia — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:22:25 +0000

I would name the parent and the subsidiary, not one or the other. I think Linden might be able to distance itself, or they might not, but it has to be properly alleged and proven. A properly-written pleading would incorporate both. As far as naming the Defendant under both their real and DBA names, I suppose its a stylistic and jurisdictional issue. In one state where I am licensed, they’d bounce it for that.

By: Broken Toys » Don’t Sue Me, Bro

Broken Toys » Don’t Sue Me, Bro — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:31:08 +0000

[...] More legal analysis at Gameslaw.net [...]

By: JDKJ

JDKJ — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:35:04 +0000

Why is naming a parent of a wholly-owned subsidiary a defect? The subsidiary always acts under the complete direction and control of it’s parent. (See, e.g., Copperweld v. Independence Tube). Linden can’t at all distance itself from the actions of XStreet.

And so what if I’ve named a defendant under both it’s real and dba names? Either way, I’m talking about the exact same defendant.