Comments on: Bragg v. Linden Lab Update – New Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Filed; Complete Chat Logs Available

By: Minsky sueing over SLart? | VintFalken.com

Minsky sueing over SLart? | VintFalken.com — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:10:03 +0000

[...] to achieve the same results that Stroker Serpentine – SexGen beds, remember? – and Marc Bragg – this one on illegal land acquisition and the ‘legal properties’ of SL land and this one we never heard of again achieved: instant SLfame to thus raise the sales of is [...]

By: Virtually Blind - Virtual Law | Legal Issues That Impact Virtual Worlds » Blog Archive » Bragg v. Linden Lab: Response to Bragg’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Filed; Discovery Continues

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:57:25 +0000

[...] Stylistically, Linden Lab’s response could not be more different that Bragg’s brief in support of the motion to dismiss. Where Bragg’s brief was fairly combative (recall the “cornered rat,”) Linden Lab’s response is rather reserved. [...]

By: Virtually Blind - Virtual Law | Legal Issues That Impact Virtual Worlds » Blog Archive » Bragg v. Linden Lab: Discovery Heats Up, Linden Documents Posted on Bragg’s Web Site

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:15:32 +0000

[...] First, we now have Bragg’s first set of responses to interrogatories (.pdf). His primary arguments (which you’re likely already familiar with from the recent motion to dismiss) are laid out fairly concisely in this document. There’s not much new material here, but a few statements related to damages are new, and I’ll excerpt those below. As usual, keep in mind that these passages advocate Marc Bragg’s position, and haven’t been proven yet. Plaintiff currently approximates that he provided $13,900 U.S. dollars and one million Lindens to Defendant Linden for tier payments, land purchases, account credit, lindens in account, and purchases from third party vendors. [...]

By: csven

csven — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:28:25 +0000

Actually, pretty much everything here aligns with official forum posts made at the time by people claiming involvement. Yeah, most (if not all) participants were likely aware it was an exploit, but the information was – as shown above – out in the open.

I honestly wish Linden Lab had used some finesse in this matter. I don’t like that someone found an exploit but it’s difficult for me to justify LL’s response given their role in this mess.

By: Benjamin Duranske

Benjamin Duranske — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:11:21 +0000

Bragg is represented by counsel, he’s not representing himself. As for the writing, briefs vary greatly in terms of writing quality, even within a case; it is often as much a function of the amount of time the lawyer can put into them as it is anything else. As a whole, Bragg’s briefs don’t strike me as particularly well or poorly written compared to what I’ve seen in the wild — they’re about in the middle of the pack.

By: Ashcroft Burnham

Ashcroft Burnham — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:04:10 +0000

Even though there is some substance to part of Bragg’s argument here (that Linden Lab cannot complain if people access and use publicly available web pages just because they have not directed people to those web pages themselves, and would prefer that people not access them), the quality of the argument and the writing is really very poor. The earlier paragraphs are circular and repetitious, and contain what appear to be wholly frivolous allegations about what appear to be routine aspects of the conduct of the litigation. Is this typical of U. S. litigation, or is Bragg just an extraordinarily bad lawyer?