3 ms·

Why don't you throw lawyers under the bus while you are at it. After all, we know that everybody but coders are looking to screw the customer.

outworlder 15y ago
Because in most companies, it is the "coders" who are in charge, right?
- dlikhten 15y ago
  flame/troll bait aside... This was most definitely intentional. EA has demonstrated a lack of giving a shit about customers since Spore and even before that. Spore was a catalyst. They prey on ignorance of users. The truth is by now someone is reading the TOS, and posting about it. The problem is that not everyone reads those posts. And kids? They don't care about their "privacy" its "gimme mah game!!@?!@!@!@!#%$!" if you disagree with that statement deal with a hormone filled teenager. Of course those kids who don't get the game will naturally look for hacked alternatives. And this is where EA's lack of understanding of the real world will bite them in the ass.
- ryanhuff 15y ago
  I have an MBA, I rarely wear a suit, and I have not sold out customers. Also, the majority of EA's management team (including CEO) does not have MBA's. So, at least in this specific example, the dreaded "MBA" label does not seem to be the culprit.
click170 15y ago
No no, I think you misunderstand my point. It's the suits job, nay legal obligation in the case of a publicly held company, to maximize profits. More and more frequently we're seeing profits take precedence over privacy and customers, and I don't think that would have been possible as a bottom-up change coming from coders. No, this change came from the top, and coming from the top it spread to the tops of other companies like wildfire. Also, I have no hesitations about throwing lawyers under the bus as well. They're the front line in the battle that these companies are waging against, what are often times paying customers, never mind that they're paying customers too and that they're ruining the future for our and their own children. What, you think it's just a matter of perspective and a lawyer sees things differently than I do? Show me one lawyer who has no qualms about arguing that a corporation is a person, and I'll show you a person who's sold their soul.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  It's the suits job, nay legal obligation in the case of a publicly held company, to maximize profits. No, it's the suit's job to run the company in the interest of the shareholders. That is not the same thing as 'maximize profits at all costs' (such as, at the cost of future litigation that will exceed the instant profit). This idea that if an opportunity for profit exists, the management is legally obliged to seize it is widespread, but without foundation. Otherwise shareholders would sue large firms for not entering hot new markets where the firms' resources would provide a short-term advantage. Show me one lawyer who has no qualms about arguing that a corporation is a person, and I'll show you a person who's sold their soul. Yeah, whatever. without the doctrine of corporate personhood, which lawyers are well aware is a different thing from natural personhood, you wouldn't be able to sue a corporation for malfeasance in the first place, but would have to try suing the officers of the corporation individually while they gave your legal claim the runaround.
  - click170 15y ago
    I don't think it's so much that people believe corporations have a legal obligation to seize all opportunities for profit, I think it's that many corporations have been behaving in ways that the majority of the population believes is, or should be illegal. The people in charge of these companies are fully aware of the public perception of what they do, but they continue because they know they can get away with it with a few financial donations to some political campaigns here and there.
    - ryanhuff 15y ago
      I don't think the vast majority of corporations do what you suggest. On the whole, IMO most corporations (private and public) contribute to the economy and society without being scoundrels.
  - pyre 15y ago
    Where does the personhood of a lump sum of money[1] come into play here? [1]: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/connecticut/ctdce/3:2011cv01465/94491/ http://dockets.justia.com/docket/connecticut/ctdce/3:2011cv0...

outworlder 15y ago

Because in most companies, it is the "coders" who are in charge, right?

dlikhten 15y ago
flame/troll bait aside... This was most definitely intentional. EA has demonstrated a lack of giving a shit about customers since Spore and even before that. Spore was a catalyst. They prey on ignorance of users. The truth is by now someone is reading the TOS, and posting about it. The problem is that not everyone reads those posts. And kids? They don't care about their "privacy" its "gimme mah game!!@?!@!@!@!#%$!" if you disagree with that statement deal with a hormone filled teenager. Of course those kids who don't get the game will naturally look for hacked alternatives. And this is where EA's lack of understanding of the real world will bite them in the ass.
ryanhuff 15y ago
I have an MBA, I rarely wear a suit, and I have not sold out customers. Also, the majority of EA's management team (including CEO) does not have MBA's. So, at least in this specific example, the dreaded "MBA" label does not seem to be the culprit.

click170 15y ago

No no, I think you misunderstand my point. It's the suits job, nay legal obligation in the case of a publicly held company, to maximize profits. More and more frequently we're seeing profits take precedence over privacy and customers, and I don't think that would have been possible as a bottom-up change coming from coders. No, this change came from the top, and coming from the top it spread to the tops of other companies like wildfire. Also, I have no hesitations about throwing lawyers under the bus as well. They're the front line in the battle that these companies are waging against, what are often times paying customers, never mind that they're paying customers too and that they're ruining the future for our and their own children. What, you think it's just a matter of perspective and a lawyer sees things differently than I do? Show me one lawyer who has no qualms about arguing that a corporation is a person, and I'll show you a person who's sold their soul.

anigbrowl 15y ago
It's the suits job, nay legal obligation in the case of a publicly held company, to maximize profits. No, it's the suit's job to run the company in the interest of the shareholders. That is not the same thing as 'maximize profits at all costs' (such as, at the cost of future litigation that will exceed the instant profit). This idea that if an opportunity for profit exists, the management is legally obliged to seize it is widespread, but without foundation. Otherwise shareholders would sue large firms for not entering hot new markets where the firms' resources would provide a short-term advantage. Show me one lawyer who has no qualms about arguing that a corporation is a person, and I'll show you a person who's sold their soul. Yeah, whatever. without the doctrine of corporate personhood, which lawyers are well aware is a different thing from natural personhood, you wouldn't be able to sue a corporation for malfeasance in the first place, but would have to try suing the officers of the corporation individually while they gave your legal claim the runaround.
- click170 15y ago
  I don't think it's so much that people believe corporations have a legal obligation to seize all opportunities for profit, I think it's that many corporations have been behaving in ways that the majority of the population believes is, or should be illegal. The people in charge of these companies are fully aware of the public perception of what they do, but they continue because they know they can get away with it with a few financial donations to some political campaigns here and there.
  - ryanhuff 15y ago
    I don't think the vast majority of corporations do what you suggest. On the whole, IMO most corporations (private and public) contribute to the economy and society without being scoundrels.
- pyre 15y ago
  Where does the personhood of a lump sum of money[1] come into play here? [1]: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/connecticut/ctdce/3:2011cv01465/94491/ http://dockets.justia.com/docket/connecticut/ctdce/3:2011cv0...