Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Blizzard wins case against goldseller.

13

Comments

  • rikiliirikilii Member UncommonPosts: 1,084

    Originally posted by Zorvan
    This settlement didn't make anything illegal for anyone other than Peons.
    It doesn't stop any of the other 16,000 gold selling companies from going about business as usual.
    It also doesn't say anything about whether Blizzard was likely to win on the merits.  We have no idea why Peons caved in.

    Wrong. it opens the door to do the same thing to every company which rears its head after peons. And for the record, if you can be successfully sued for it, then it's as close to illegal as it needs to be.

    That's absolutely not the case.  The door is no more open than it was before this case was filed.  No precedent has been set here.   Blizzard can file the same type of lawsuit against anyone, but they will have to go through all the same doors they had to go through to get this settlement, if not more (considering the majority of gold sellers are in foreign countries).

    All this settlement means is that Peons consented to an injunction that Blizzard may or may not have succeeded in obtaining.  If Blizzard had such a slam-dunk case, it would have gotten a preliminary injunction and/or won the case on summary judgment.  For all we know, Blizzard could have paid Peons money to settle.  Or Peons may simply have settled because it couldn't afford to spend the millions it would cost to defend against this suit.

     

     

     

    ____________________________________________
    im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good

  • ZorvanZorvan Member CommonPosts: 8,912
    Originally posted by rikilii


     
    Originally posted by Zorvan
    This settlement didn't make anything illegal for anyone other than Peons.
    It doesn't stop any of the other 16,000 gold selling companies from going about business as usual.
    It also doesn't say anything about whether Blizzard was likely to win on the merits.  We have no idea why Peons caved in.

    Wrong. it opens the door to do the same thing to every company which rears its head after peons. And for the record, if you can be successfully sued for it, then it's as close to illegal as it needs to be.

    That's absolutely not the case.  The door is no more open than it was before this case was filed.  No precedent has been set here.   Blizzard can file the same type of lawsuit against anyone, but they will have to go through all the same doors they had to go through to get this settlement, if not more (considering the majority of gold sellers are in foreign countries).

     

    All this settlement means is that Peons consented to an injunction that Blizzard may or may not have succeeded in obtaining.  If Blizzard had such a slam-dunk case, it would have gotten a preliminary injunction and/or won the case on summary judgment.  For all we know, Blizzard could have paid Peons money to settle.  Or Peons may simply have settled because it couldn't afford to spend the millions it would cost to defend against this suit.

     

     

     

    This would be fine also. Hell, Blizz can take note of every company advertising in chat, then sue them collectively. Even banding together, the goldsellers wouldn't stand a chance against Blizz monetarily. Even IGE would fall down to Blizz when it came to paying and maintaining the high price lawyers. So it still provides a very nice deterrent to goldsellers, no matter what.

  • EphimeroEphimero Member Posts: 1,860

    Why am I imagining IGE's lawyers with cloaks and red tails entering a court with their cases and everything?

    On topic, one less grain in the salt's mountain, reminds me when Lineage2 acted against private servers, one down, 1 week of fear, back to normal.

  • tunabuntunabun Member UncommonPosts: 666

     

    Jesus Christ...

     

    Do you guys even understand what this is? 

    This case means nothing to future hearings because it NEVER went to court and thus a PRECEDENT couldn't be set.  All they did was get an injunction against a specific company.  

    peons4hire took one for the team, doesn't anyone other than ianubisi and I see that??

    Had they won in court like their previous case against the emu company THEN this would be a victory, as it stands it means nothing, not even in the states where it should have.  They needed to take this to court and win for this to mean something.  It's a surface victory in my opinion purely for victories sake.  I'm inferring Blizzard didn't take this to court because they were afraid the EULA wouldn't have held up, as it might have been deemed their responsibility to kick people breaking the rules within their game out of it as they certainly have the power to do so and the court could have definitely seen it that way setting a precedent in favour of the secondary market.  I'm also inferring that P4H didn't want to take this to court because if they lost it WOULD have set a precedent for which all other companies within the states could have been taken to court over, thusly destroying the market in the states.

    The facts of the other case are very different from this one, as they not only apply to the EULA but also the DMCA and have to do with an entirely different area, engineering and reversing it.  This area however, in game advertising and selling of virtual items is STILL very much a grey area.  I really believe that both parties came to an agreement ONLY because neither was willing to take the chance at a loss, as a loss here means the beginning of the end for this issue.  Please see this for what it is, a draw, nothing more.  you could call it a personal victory of one company over another but it is not a victory for the game industry over the secondary market.

    If the most expensive law team in the gaming industry can merely get the defendant to agree to what can be best described as a "plea bargain" and that can be called a win then the secondary market has some serious strength.  Plea bargains are offered when you don't have a sound victory in hand, not when you have what it takes to get a conviction.

     

    Edit

    Sorry if I got a tad upset here but all the cheering and hand waving is a little much.  Let's keep this in perspective.

    - Burying Threads Since 1979 -

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,536

    Originally posted by tunabun


     
    Jesus Christ...
     
    Do you guys even understand what this is? 
    This case means nothing to future hearings because it NEVER went to court and thus a PRECEDENT couldn't be set.  All they did was get an injunction against a specific company.  
    peons4hire took one for the team, doesn't anyone other than ianubisi and I see that??
    Had they won in court like their previous case against the emu company THEN this would be a victory, as it stands it means nothing, not even in the states where it should have.  They needed to take this to court and win for this to mean something.  It's a surface victory in my opinion purely for victories sake.  I'm inferring Blizzard didn't take this to court because they were afraid the EULA wouldn't have held up, as it might have been deemed their responsibility to kick people breaking the rules within their game out of it as they certainly have the power to do so and the court could have definitely seen it that way setting a precedent in favour of the secondary market.  I'm also inferring that P4H didn't want to take this to court because if they lost it WOULD have set a precedent for which all other companies within the states could have been taken to court over, thusly destroying the market in the states.
    The facts of the other case are very different from this one, as they not only apply to the EULA but also the DMCA and have to do with an entirely different area, engineering and reversing it.  This area however, in game advertising and selling of virtual items is STILL very much a grey area.  I really believe that both parties came to an agreement ONLY because neither was willing to take the chance at a loss, as a loss here means the beginning of the end for this issue.  Please see this for what it is, a draw, nothing more.  you could call it a personal victory of one company over another but it is not a victory for the game industry over the secondary market.
    If the most expensive law team in the gaming industry can merely get the defendant to agree to what can be best described as a "plea bargain" and that can be called a win then the secondary market has some serious strength.  Plea bargains are offered when you don't have a sound victory in hand, not when you have what it takes to get a conviction.
     
    Edit
    Sorry if I got a tad upset here but all the cheering and hand waving is a little much.  Let's keep this in perspective.
    I think in a way the reason there isn't more actions taken is because there is no plain print for the courts to rule on.However i can guarantee you this,if these RMT sites were using even a banner of a monopoly symbol on there site without hasbro's consent,they would be down by the next day.Hasbro is a giant when comes to lawsuits and has even hired several top notch lawyers from huge firms such as coke to work for them.

    I think the whole RMT thing is still rather new and the developers are just starting to realize it's ramifications.Unlike hasbro who has been involved in lawsuits for some time now,most of these developers don't have the funds or the know how to start up actions in court.It takes ALOT of money to start hiring big time lawyers to work for your company.I think most game developers work on such a fine cash line they can't afford to do it.Like i  said if anyone thinks this can't be done,look no further than HASBRO and it WOULD be done,it's only a matter of time.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • Nitrate555Nitrate555 Member Posts: 12
    Originally posted by Zorvan

    Originally posted by rikilii


     
    Originally posted by Zorvan
    This settlement didn't make anything illegal for anyone other than Peons.
    It doesn't stop any of the other 16,000 gold selling companies from going about business as usual.
    It also doesn't say anything about whether Blizzard was likely to win on the merits.  We have no idea why Peons caved in.

    Wrong. it opens the door to do the same thing to every company which rears its head after peons. And for the record, if you can be successfully sued for it, then it's as close to illegal as it needs to be.

    That's absolutely not the case.  The door is no more open than it was before this case was filed.  No precedent has been set here.   Blizzard can file the same type of lawsuit against anyone, but they will have to go through all the same doors they had to go through to get this settlement, if not more (considering the majority of gold sellers are in foreign countries).

     

    All this settlement means is that Peons consented to an injunction that Blizzard may or may not have succeeded in obtaining.  If Blizzard had such a slam-dunk case, it would have gotten a preliminary injunction and/or won the case on summary judgment.  For all we know, Blizzard could have paid Peons money to settle.  Or Peons may simply have settled because it couldn't afford to spend the millions it would cost to defend against this suit.

     

     

     

    This would be fine also. Hell, Blizz can take note of every company advertising in chat, then sue them collectively. Even banding together, the goldsellers wouldn't stand a chance against Blizz monetarily. Even IGE would fall down to Blizz when it came to paying and maintaining the high price lawyers. So it still provides a very nice deterrent to goldsellers, no matter what.



    Blizzard may sue them, but remember, they would be suing American botters too which most of you think are "Chinese" employees.
  • GnazonGnazon Member Posts: 442

    The thing is that Peons4Hire got sued not for gold selling but for aggressive spamming which in my opinion does not help all that much. Plus the only reason they could be dragged into court was because they were US based. So while I applaud the war on gold sellers, I am rather skeptical as to this case having much effect in the long run (other then the companies moving their offices overseas).

    image

  • Pappy13Pappy13 Member Posts: 2,138

     

    Originally posted by tunabun


    The facts of the other case are very different from this one, as they not only apply to the EULA but also the DMCA and have to do with an entirely different area, engineering and reversing it.  This area however, in game advertising and selling of virtual items is STILL very much a grey area.  I really believe that both parties came to an agreement ONLY because neither was willing to take the chance at a loss, as a loss here means the beginning of the end for this issue.  Please see this for what it is, a draw, nothing more.  you could call it a personal victory of one company over another but it is not a victory for the game industry over the secondary market.



    I take it you didn't read the injuction?  I listed the specifics below.  Please note (d) Engaging in the sale of World of Warcraft virtual assests or power leveling services.  Um, exactly where is the gray area there?  This effectively prevents Peons4hire from making money off World of Warcraft.  Also note that they can't simply start up another business to do that either, that's prevented by the injuction as well.  How in the world is that a draw?  Now maybe you're right in that it doesn't necessarily set a legal precedent they can use against other companies, but you can't in any way shape or form not think that other gold sellers aren't seeing this as a victory for Blizzard over one of their own.  They shut one down, all the rest are wondering who's next.  If Blizzard would have dropped the lawsuit you don't think that all the Gold Sellers would have been claiming victory?  Um, ok.

     From the injuction:

     

     (a) making any use of the World of Warcraft® in-game

    communication or chat system to advertise any website, business, or

    commercial endeavor, including any business associated with In

    Game Dollar, LLC or www.peons4hire.com;

    (b) sending messages to the World of Warcraft® servers, the

    World of Warcraft® in-game communication or chat system, or any

    other computer used by Blizzard in connection with the World of

    Warcraft® game, if such messages mention or advertise the website

    www.peons4hire.com, In Game Dollar LLC or any other commercial endeavor;

    (c) making any unauthorized use, or obtaining any unauthorized

    access to Blizzard’s computer systems or network; or

    (d) engaging in the sale of World of Warcraft® virtual assets or

    power leveling services.

    image

  • rikiliirikilii Member UncommonPosts: 1,084

    By the way, if you read the injunction carefully, it only applies to Game Dollar, LLC.

    It does not apply directly to the other defendant, Benjamin Lee.  There is vague language in the injunction that COULD be interpreted that way, but given the fact that Lee was explicitly named as a defendant, but was NOT named as a party to the consent decree, it's unlikely to be interpreted that way.

    Bottom Line:  Lee may just be able to dissolve Game Dollar and start up a new LLC under a different name, business as usual.

    ____________________________________________
    im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good

  • Pappy13Pappy13 Member Posts: 2,138
    Originally posted by rikilii


    By the way, if you read the injunction carefully, it only applies to Game Dollar, LLC.
    It does not apply directly to the other defendant, Benjamin Lee.  There is vague language in the injunction that COULD be interpreted that way, but given the fact that Lee was explicitly named as a defendant, but was NOT named as a party to the consent decree, it's unlikely to be interpreted that way.
    Bottom Line:  Lee may just be able to dissolve Game Dollar and start up a new LLC under a different name, business as usual.



    No it does not ONLY apply to Game Dollar.  Read the injunction again.  It says: "In Game Dollar LLC or any other commercial endeavor" and "any website, business, or commercial endeavor, including any business associated with In Game Dollar, LLC or www.peons4hire.com;"

    The Defendants are listed as In Game Dollar LLC and Benjamin Lee and the injunction states "Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from knowingly:"

    The bottom line is he can't simply start up another company doing the same thing he was.  He's now out of the business of gold trading within World of Warcraft.  This does not stop him from doing that for some other MMO however.

    image

  • GozzarGozzar Member UncommonPosts: 387

    goldsellers will be the doom of all mmorpg´s ;/

    image

    image

  • rikiliirikilii Member UncommonPosts: 1,084

     

    Originally posted by Pappy13

    Originally posted by rikilii


    By the way, if you read the injunction carefully, it only applies to Game Dollar, LLC.
    It does not apply directly to the other defendant, Benjamin Lee.  There is vague language in the injunction that COULD be interpreted that way, but given the fact that Lee was explicitly named as a defendant, but was NOT named as a party to the consent decree, it's unlikely to be interpreted that way.
    Bottom Line:  Lee may just be able to dissolve Game Dollar and start up a new LLC under a different name, business as usual.



    No it does not ONLY apply to Game Dollar.  Read the injunction again.  It says: "In Game Dollar LLC or any other commercial endeavor" and "any website, business, or commercial endeavor, including any business associated with In Game Dollar, LLC or www.peons4hire.com;"

    The Defendants are listed as In Game Dollar LLC and Benjamin Lee and the injunction states "Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from knowingly:"

    The bottom line is he can't simply start up another company doing the same thing he was.  He's now out of the business of gold trading within World of Warcraft.  This does not stop him from doing that for some other MMO however.

     

    Read it again.  It says "Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from knowingly: ...

    "Defendant" is defined as In Game Dollar, LLC, and not Benjamin Lee.

    And, you can't act in concert with a company if it doesn't exist.

    If they meant to include Lee personally within the scope of this injunction, it would have been crystal clear.  Lawyers like these do not get paid $400+/hour to mess up simple things like this.

    Also, notice that there has been no announcement of the case being dismissed.

    ____________________________________________
    im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good

  • rejadrejad Member Posts: 346

    Good news.  Of course it would help if Blizzard hadn't designed their game so that to do everything that doesn't require killing something then requires spending in-game gold.  It seems to me the game is set up to reward players who ebay and punish those who actually play.

  • LokyLoky Member UncommonPosts: 182

    Glad they listened to the gaming community somewhat and took actions for the monster they (blizz) have created....

    image
  • LellLell Member Posts: 45

     

    An injunction is about as useful as toilet paper if you can't enforce it. Just remember where most of these companies are from.

    Move on, nothing to see here. This guy will just get a relative to form another company in China and they'll be back on in a week.

  • Nitrate555Nitrate555 Member Posts: 12
    Well, simply ban any ip's coming from China. They have their own version of WoW anyhow.
  • 28days28days Member Posts: 213

    Now lets see them go after anyone doing the same from Countries outside of the USA.  This isn't any kind of victory...It's just lame posturing...  anyone can still do exactly the same thing outside of the U.S and there's nothing Blizzard would be able to do about it...

    I'am half Russian..  Let's see Blizzard go over to Russia and stop the same operations being done there... they'd get laughed out of the country.. Gold and item selling will ALWAYS be around. period...

  • TorakTorak Member Posts: 4,905

    Originally posted by 28days


    Now lets see them go after anyone doing the same from Countries outside of the USA.  This isn't any kind of victory...It's just lame posturing...  anyone can still do exactly the same thing outside of the U.S and there's nothing Blizzard would be able to do about it...
    Lets see Blizzard go over to Russia and stop the same operation... they'd get laughed out of the country..
    Its not like Blizzard "won" any victory over goldsellers in general in the US. They got one company for misusing the chat channel. Not for RMT.

     Big todo about nothing.

  • Nitrate555Nitrate555 Member Posts: 12
    why bother with a lawsuit with these tiny businesses anyway? they own the game, they can say f u to whatever country they please. then lets see who's having the last laugh?
  • 28days28days Member Posts: 213

    I always wanted Blizzard to make an in-game item selling server where you can place items up in the AH for real world money.  Including gold....  Blizzard can than take a % of each sale.. Everybody wins. Everyone makes $ and people who don't like that kind of setup can play on the regular servers.

  • bverjibverji Member UncommonPosts: 722

    People are making this out to be far more then it is. This in no way sets any legal precedent for EULA. All this means is that a LLC "CHOSE" to agree to an injunction rather then spend time and money fighting in court. As someone said before all that is going to happen is the company will restructure and continue; or continue while skirting the injunction.

    If anything Blizzards willingness to settle shows weakness in their position.

  • TorakTorak Member Posts: 4,905
    Originally posted by Nitrate555

    why bother with a lawsuit with these tiny businesses anyway? they own the game, they can say f u to whatever country they please. then lets see who's having the last laugh?



    Many games do in fact block Chinese IP address. NCSoft has been blocking them for years in Lineage 2. It doesn't help whatso ever. They just get proxy servers.

    Unfortunately for every idea the devs of a game can come with and take the time and money to implement, farmers come up with about a dozen ways to work around it.

     

     

  • Pappy13Pappy13 Member Posts: 2,138

    Originally posted by rikilii


     
    Originally posted by Pappy13

    Originally posted by rikilii


    By the way, if you read the injunction carefully, it only applies to Game Dollar, LLC.
    It does not apply directly to the other defendant, Benjamin Lee.  There is vague language in the injunction that COULD be interpreted that way, but given the fact that Lee was explicitly named as a defendant, but was NOT named as a party to the consent decree, it's unlikely to be interpreted that way.
    Bottom Line:  Lee may just be able to dissolve Game Dollar and start up a new LLC under a different name, business as usual.



    No it does not ONLY apply to Game Dollar.  Read the injunction again.  It says: "In Game Dollar LLC or any other commercial endeavor" and "any website, business, or commercial endeavor, including any business associated with In Game Dollar, LLC or www.peons4hire.com;"

    The Defendants are listed as In Game Dollar LLC and Benjamin Lee and the injunction states "Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from knowingly:"

    The bottom line is he can't simply start up another company doing the same thing he was.  He's now out of the business of gold trading within World of Warcraft.  This does not stop him from doing that for some other MMO however.

     

    Read it again.  It says "Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from knowingly: ...

    "Defendant" is defined as In Game Dollar, LLC, and not Benjamin Lee.

    And, you can't act in concert with a company if it doesn't exist.

    If they meant to include Lee personally within the scope of this injunction, it would have been crystal clear.  Lawyers like these do not get paid $400+/hour to mess up simple things like this.

    Also, notice that there has been no announcement of the case being dismissed.

    I'm not sure what you are reading, but there are the very top it says:

    "

    BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

    and VIVENDI GAMES, INC.,

    Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    IN GAME DOLLAR, LLC and

    BENJAMIN LEE,

    . Defendants."

    I don't know how it can be much more obvious than this.

    image

  • rikiliirikilii Member UncommonPosts: 1,084

    Originally posted by Pappy13


     
    Originally posted by rikilii


     
    Originally posted by Pappy13

    Originally posted by rikilii


    By the way, if you read the injunction carefully, it only applies to Game Dollar, LLC.
    It does not apply directly to the other defendant, Benjamin Lee.  There is vague language in the injunction that COULD be interpreted that way, but given the fact that Lee was explicitly named as a defendant, but was NOT named as a party to the consent decree, it's unlikely to be interpreted that way.
    Bottom Line:  Lee may just be able to dissolve Game Dollar and start up a new LLC under a different name, business as usual.



    No it does not ONLY apply to Game Dollar.  Read the injunction again.  It says: "In Game Dollar LLC or any other commercial endeavor" and "any website, business, or commercial endeavor, including any business associated with In Game Dollar, LLC or www.peons4hire.com;"

    The Defendants are listed as In Game Dollar LLC and Benjamin Lee and the injunction states "Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from knowingly:"

    The bottom line is he can't simply start up another company doing the same thing he was.  He's now out of the business of gold trading within World of Warcraft.  This does not stop him from doing that for some other MMO however.

     

    Read it again.  It says "Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from knowingly: ...

    "Defendant" is defined as In Game Dollar, LLC, and not Benjamin Lee.

    And, you can't act in concert with a company if it doesn't exist.

    If they meant to include Lee personally within the scope of this injunction, it would have been crystal clear.  Lawyers like these do not get paid $400+/hour to mess up simple things like this.

    Also, notice that there has been no announcement of the case being dismissed.

    I'm not sure what you are reading, but there are the very top it says:

     

    "

    BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

    and VIVENDI GAMES, INC.,

    Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    IN GAME DOLLAR, LLC and

    BENJAMIN LEE,

    . Defendants."

    I don't know how it can be much more obvious than this.

    You do know that it is possible for a judgment or settlement in a civil lawsuit to apply to one, but not all of the defendants, don't you?

    Do you see the "s" at the end of the word "Defendant" that you just quoted.  Now see if you can find an "s" after the word "Defendant" anywhere else in the document.

    That thing you are quoting is the case caption.  It's just the name of the case.  Yes, Benjamin Lee is a defendant in the case.  That's all the more telling of the fact that he is not specifically and personally named as being subject to the injunction.

    ____________________________________________
    im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good

  • Pappy13Pappy13 Member Posts: 2,138
    Originally posted by rikilii


     
    Originally posted by Pappy13


     
    Originally posted by rikilii


     
    Originally posted by Pappy13

    Originally posted by rikilii


    By the way, if you read the injunction carefully, it only applies to Game Dollar, LLC.
    It does not apply directly to the other defendant, Benjamin Lee.  There is vague language in the injunction that COULD be interpreted that way, but given the fact that Lee was explicitly named as a defendant, but was NOT named as a party to the consent decree, it's unlikely to be interpreted that way.
    Bottom Line:  Lee may just be able to dissolve Game Dollar and start up a new LLC under a different name, business as usual.



    No it does not ONLY apply to Game Dollar.  Read the injunction again.  It says: "In Game Dollar LLC or any other commercial endeavor" and "any website, business, or commercial endeavor, including any business associated with In Game Dollar, LLC or www.peons4hire.com;"

    The Defendants are listed as In Game Dollar LLC and Benjamin Lee and the injunction states "Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from knowingly:"

    The bottom line is he can't simply start up another company doing the same thing he was.  He's now out of the business of gold trading within World of Warcraft.  This does not stop him from doing that for some other MMO however.

     

    Read it again.  It says "Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from knowingly: ...

    "Defendant" is defined as In Game Dollar, LLC, and not Benjamin Lee.

    And, you can't act in concert with a company if it doesn't exist.

    If they meant to include Lee personally within the scope of this injunction, it would have been crystal clear.  Lawyers like these do not get paid $400+/hour to mess up simple things like this.

    Also, notice that there has been no announcement of the case being dismissed.

    I'm not sure what you are reading, but there are the very top it says:

     

    "

    BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

    and VIVENDI GAMES, INC.,

    Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    IN GAME DOLLAR, LLC and

    BENJAMIN LEE,

    . Defendants."

    I don't know how it can be much more obvious than this.

     

    You do know that it is possible for a judgment or settlement in a civil lawsuit to apply to one, but not all of the defendants, don't you?

    Do you see the "s" at the end of the word "Defendant" that you just quoted.  Now see if you can find an "s" after the word "Defendant" anywhere else in the document.

    That thing you are quoting is the case caption.  It's just the name of the case.  Yes, Benjamin Lee is a defendant in the case.  That's all the more telling of the fact that he is not specifically and personally named as being subject to the injunction.

    I give.  Believe whatever you want.  Legal documents all start out stating quite clearly who the Plaintiff's are and who the Defendant's are.  If you think that doesn't mean anything, then there's no point in discussing it anymore.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.