5 ms·

I don't see this suit as trolling. There exists a large group of people who were sold a product which did not perform its primary function of "doing what its o

by skuhn 12y ago

I don't see this suit as trolling. There exists a large group of people who were sold a product which did not perform its primary function of "doing what its owner told it to do". It turns out that this was intentional on the part of the manufacturer. The nature of the problem is such that returning the product for a refund will not suffice, so the consumers should sue. The most effect way to handle a large body of plaintiffs against a single defendant is with a class action suit. Lenovo will inevitably settle or go to trial and be found guilty, there is no other possible outcome. I personally hope that this erases their profits from Superfish, and quite a bit more for the flagrant and willful violation of consumer trust.

laumars 12y ago
I think you may have misread the OP because you're tone is one of disagreement while your content is a near-reiteration of his post.
- skuhn 12y ago
  I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling", as in I don't like their methods but I like the results in this particular situation. I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it. I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it.
  - laumars 12y ago
    > I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling" Yeah I got that. My point was that first part was just setting himself up to explain why he thought this lawsuit was a good idea - which you were arguing as well. ie you're focusing on the wrong part of his post and thus arguing against his post while agreeing with the majority of it. > "I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it." Hence why I said "near-reiteration" rather than "simply reiterated". You still argued the same points and came to the same conclusion regardless of your differing starting point with regards to class action lawsuits. > I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it. Again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. You're preaching to the converted. ;)
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    Yes - I understood where you were coming from. My original comment had a reference to patent trolling, which I felt just sidelined what I was trying to say. I completely agree with you - sometimes class action lawsuits are entirely appropriate - this is one of those cases. We'll leave it for another discussion as to when patent lawsuits are appropriate.

by skuhn 12y ago

laumars 12y ago

I think you may have misread the OP because you're tone is one of disagreement while your content is a near-reiteration of his post.

skuhn 12y ago
I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling", as in I don't like their methods but I like the results in this particular situation. I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it. I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it.
- laumars 12y ago
  > I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling" Yeah I got that. My point was that first part was just setting himself up to explain why he thought this lawsuit was a good idea - which you were arguing as well. ie you're focusing on the wrong part of his post and thus arguing against his post while agreeing with the majority of it. > "I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it." Hence why I said "near-reiteration" rather than "simply reiterated". You still argued the same points and came to the same conclusion regardless of your differing starting point with regards to class action lawsuits. > I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it. Again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. You're preaching to the converted. ;)
- ghshephard 12y ago
  Yes - I understood where you were coming from. My original comment had a reference to patent trolling, which I felt just sidelined what I was trying to say. I completely agree with you - sometimes class action lawsuits are entirely appropriate - this is one of those cases. We'll leave it for another discussion as to when patent lawsuits are appropriate.