3 ms·

With a Wii U at least, there's a clause in the license agreement that you waive your right to sue unless you send written notice.

boyter 14y ago
Not trying to be sarcastic or such, but I am willing to bet that the agreement is inside the box IE you have "agreed" to it without knowing its contents when you buy the console and open it. If that's the case will it hold up?
- pyre 14y ago
  Well, I guess an argument could be made that you should read it, and if you don't accept it, you can then return the product. Of course, this calls into question whether or not his 'open box' return will be for full face-value, etc.
gnu8 14y ago
The agreement found at http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wiiu/en_na/account_your_account.jsp http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wiiu/en_na/account_... excludes two cases: 1) protection of intellectual property rights (by either party) 2) small claims court So if you just want your money back for your games it shouldn't be a problem to get it. The exception for intellectual property claims is perhaps more interesting. Nintendo insists on stacking the deck and forcing anyone they've screwed to individually go through their rigged kangaroo court(1), except when enforcing their own intellectual property rights. I wonder how effective they would be pursuing pirates with mandatory binding arbitration, which the pirates haven't agreed to in any case, rather than filing DMCA complaints. Perhaps though, if you've purchased licenses to their games and now you can't play them, that could be considered to be an intellectual property related dispute: interference with your right to use your legal licenses of their intellectual property. (1)Not hyperbole, mandatory arbitration clauses are patently unfair and should be illegal, or legally made to have the effect of optional arbitration clauses.
- MSM 14y ago
  As others have said, this is probably easily solved by calling and just explaining the problem. It was mentioned multiple times in the article that this case was a fringe scenario (he had old software, first gen, etc). It doesn't even sound like Nintendo is trying to employ DRM to do anything dirty, it sounds like there were simply issues with early Wiis that weren't addressed. If you decide to skip all that crazy talking-it-out nonsense and take Nintendo to small claims court, you pretty much deserve to lose your filing fee and time screwing around with the courts.
  - gnu8 14y ago
    Aside from the fact that all DRM is dirty and should be fought wherever it is found, I never suggested that the author should not attempt a diplomatic solution first.

boyter 14y ago

Not trying to be sarcastic or such, but I am willing to bet that the agreement is inside the box IE you have "agreed" to it without knowing its contents when you buy the console and open it. If that's the case will it hold up?

pyre 14y ago
Well, I guess an argument could be made that you should read it, and if you don't accept it, you can then return the product. Of course, this calls into question whether or not his 'open box' return will be for full face-value, etc.

gnu8 14y ago

The agreement found at http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wiiu/en_na/account_your_account.jsp http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wiiu/en_na/account_... excludes two cases: 1) protection of intellectual property rights (by either party) 2) small claims court So if you just want your money back for your games it shouldn't be a problem to get it. The exception for intellectual property claims is perhaps more interesting. Nintendo insists on stacking the deck and forcing anyone they've screwed to individually go through their rigged kangaroo court(1), except when enforcing their own intellectual property rights. I wonder how effective they would be pursuing pirates with mandatory binding arbitration, which the pirates haven't agreed to in any case, rather than filing DMCA complaints. Perhaps though, if you've purchased licenses to their games and now you can't play them, that could be considered to be an intellectual property related dispute: interference with your right to use your legal licenses of their intellectual property. (1)Not hyperbole, mandatory arbitration clauses are patently unfair and should be illegal, or legally made to have the effect of optional arbitration clauses.

MSM 14y ago
As others have said, this is probably easily solved by calling and just explaining the problem. It was mentioned multiple times in the article that this case was a fringe scenario (he had old software, first gen, etc). It doesn't even sound like Nintendo is trying to employ DRM to do anything dirty, it sounds like there were simply issues with early Wiis that weren't addressed. If you decide to skip all that crazy talking-it-out nonsense and take Nintendo to small claims court, you pretty much deserve to lose your filing fee and time screwing around with the courts.
- gnu8 14y ago
  Aside from the fact that all DRM is dirty and should be fought wherever it is found, I never suggested that the author should not attempt a diplomatic solution first.