by

NEWSFLASH: EA DENIES ACTUALLY BEING A BUSINESS IN COURT [Author: Lum the Mad]

Plaintiff (ex-vols): 17.\tab Defendant EA is a for profit business which has gross revenue in excess of one billion dollars per annum.

Defendant (EA): Defendants admit EA had gross revenue in excess of one $1 billion per annum in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 17.

You heard it here first: EA denies, in court, being a for profit business. This explains so much.

Other high/lowlights:

Defendants admits that EA has employees.

(As of last time we checked anyway)

Plaintiff (ex-vols): 20.\tab Defendant OSI is a for profit business which has gross revenue in excess of $25 million dollars per annum.

Defendant (EA): Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 20.

OSI is not a business. What OSI is remains to be seen. Our guess is that it is some unique kind of fish.

Plaintiff (ex-vols): 29.\tab The sale of subscriptions to UO is critical to Defendants\’e2\’80\’99 business success.

Defendant (EA): Defendants admit that customers pay a subscription fee to play UO. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 29.

So, OSI does actually sell subscriptions to UO. But it’s not really important that they do so. There’s always that profitable t-shirt sideline!

43.\tab Within the period 1997 to the present, Counselors were enrolled in the program through a process in which OSI plays a primary role.

Defendant (EA): Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 43.

The primary role was actually played by Wilford Brimley.

50.\tab Within the period 1997 to the present, OSI reviewed the Counselors selected by the participant or participants in the Counselor program.

Defendant (EA): Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 50.

Counselors were actually chosen completely at random.

58.\tab These problems include problems which arise due to programming errors (bugs) in the UO product.

Defendant (EA): Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 58.

There are, of course, no programming errors (bugs) in the UO product.

85.\tab Customers, including those serving as Counselors, could acquire various virtual items (houses, swords, etc..) while using UO.

Defendant (EA): Defendants admit that characters within UO could acquire various virtual items within UO. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 85.

86.\tab These items have monetary value.

Defendant (EA): Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 86.

So, according to EA, items in UO have no monetary value. This would explain why GM Darwin was fired.

I’m sure there’s much more legal jocularities contained within, so take a look for yourself.

Complaint of ex-UO Volunteers: MS Word document (53k)

Response by Electronic Arts: ZIP archive of JPG scans (2.3 mb)