Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
Not backpedalling - correcting your claim that I misquoted you. You stated I misquoted, which I did not. But I get that you would rather argue semantics than deal with the lack of validity in your claim....
|
Yes, you did, backpedaler.
Quote:
|
You are correct. The problem is you are claiming that their ToS violates the law. Yet you have yet to do more than produce a claim. Cite case law that backs up your contention that software is only purchased and not "leased" as Steam ToS basically states.
|
Does anyone have to "cite case law" to prove a law was broken? Of course not. Case law is for precedent only.
Quote:
|
Quite untrue. Even as a "mere distributor" they are bound by the agreements that they make with the publishers. That generally requires them to agree to enforce the publishers ToS on their service. Thus they have a legal obligation to do so.
|
And here you are taking without knowing what Square Enix's TOS are. But I'm pretty sure that these TOSs don't include "suppress anyone who keeps multiplayer alive".
Quote:
|
Then Origin is a monoply, as they are the ONLY source for EA pc games. Thats 100% of the EA pc game market. Why haven't you sued them yet?
|
How much more out of your ass can you possibly talk? Origin = PC gaming? By your infantile whatever-I-want-it-to-be logic, Steam = PC gaming, and any exclusives = monopoly.
Quote:
|
Yes, we agree there. The problem is your making a claim that it is violating the law but have been shown repeatedly that your wrong. However, you refuse to accept common sense arguements in your malevolence toward Steam. If you were right, don't you think folks like Origin, Capsule, etc would have launched legal challenges?
|
They probably have, but antitrust cases take time to develop.
Quote:
And there we have it - you had the chance to debate the points and instead you go for the personal slam. Thanks for proving my point.
|
I did both. Go back to the sandbox at Stormfront, kid.