Jackson fans in France have gone to court and are aiming to sue Murray for “emotional distress.” The news comes just a week after Murray was told he must forfeit his medical license. Safe to say 2012 is not looking much brighter than 2011 for Murray.

Lawyer Emmanuel Ludot is representing over one hundred Jackson fans, all of whom seem determined to kick a man when he’s down in the name of a quick personal payout. Murray has been a target of Jackson fans since the singer’s 2009 death and the physician’s subsequent conviction for involuntary manslaughter. This is the first time revenge has been pursued through the courts, however. Ludot told AFP:

“It’s similar to losing a childhood friend in a traffic accident. Because this death affects you, you have the possibility to file a suit and seek compensation.”

Reportedly, fans could receive $13,000 apiece if the lawsuit is successful. Each fan will file an individual lawsuit, though some fans (to their credit) say they aren’t seeking money, and are only interested in claiming a symbolic amount in damages equivalent to one euro.

Murray was sentenced to the maximum penalty of four years of incarceration; according to Los Angeles County Sheriff officials, he’s expected to serve a little less than two years in the Los Angeles County Jail, due to California prison overcrowding.

Michael Jackson Fans Sue Dr. Conrad Murray is a post from: The Inquisitr

Love has been renting a $27,000-a-month home in the West Village area of New York City, but the owner of the home, Donna Lyon, is not happy with how the rocker has treated her property. Love has now been asked to leave the house.

Lyon’s complaints are varied. She says her famous tenant has redecorated the four-storey house against her will, which Lyon claims has “ruined” the property, previously “made beautiful” by interior designer and former resident Steven Gambrel. It’s fair to say Lyon was not won over by Love’s choice of interior design tastes:

“Courtney has wallpapered and painted a large portion of the property without my consent. I learned about this when I wanted to sell the house and had photographs taken. They sent me the brochure and I said, ‘This can’t be my property.’ I came to New York to see it and I was horrified by what she had done. The walls that had been hand-painted and glazed were ruined, covered in damask wallpaper and ice-blue paint.”

Lyon also says Love is $50,000 behind on her rent, and almost razed the house to the ground when she accidentally set curtains on fire with a candle. “I got a call from her accountant, who said, ‘Miss Love is fine,’ which I was glad to hear, but I thought, ‘What about the house?”’ Lyon told the New York Post.

The landlady says  it will take 12 weeks and US$100,000 to restore the home to its original state. Her lawyer Norman Flitt has said Love’s alleged actions are “tantamount to destroying a work of art.”

A court date of December 21 has been set. The rock star’s representative has not commented.

Courtney Love Evicted After ‘Destroying’ House is a post from: The Inquisitr

Next time you pop into Starbucks for your daily dose of overpriced, over sugared caffeine, you may want to think twice before using the bathroom. One five-year-old girl recently uncovered a hidden video camera in the restroom of the coffee chain’s Washington branch, and her father is now suing Starbucks.

William Yockey of Virginia said he instantly reported the “humiliating and disgusting matter” to the cafe’s manager (who was completely unaware of the camera), but is taking his outrage further than a simple cross word.

Yockey says his daughter found the camera concealed inside the U-shaped drain beneath the bathroom sink. While washing her hands, the girl spied the camera, pointed directly at the toilet. The bathroom was cordoned off as police checked for fingerprints and confiscated the camera as evidence.

‘It’s embarrassing, humiliating, even today,’ an outraged Mr Yockey told ABC News. He added that video footage of his child, “could have been all over the internet… she could have been violated.”

Yockey was sightseeing with his family in Washington in April when their daughter asked to use the restroom. They chose to enter the Starbucks in Penn Quarter, not all that far from the White House and the National Mall.

For what it’s worth, Starbucks spokesman Alan Hilowitz had this to say:

“We, as a company, take our obligation to provide a safe environment very seriously. When we were alerted, we called the police.”

Maybe hold it in for future Starbucks visits, folks.

Starbucks Sued Over Hidden Bathroom Camera is a post from: The Inquisitr

Most of the time judges are either downright moronic or they are aa dry as a mouth trying to spit in the middle of a sandstorm in the Sahara Desert.

This isn’t the case with Judge Sam Sparks from the US District Court in Western Texas (not Eastern Texas which is the home to moronic judges) who has gained a certain amount of fame when it comes to his criticizing the lawyers who appear in front of him. So much so that they have come up with a term for his creative comeuppance – benchslapping.

The most recent example of his awesome humor was when he became more than irritated with the actions of some lawyers and decided that he would invite them to a “kindergarten party”.

Here is the official order:

Now just in case you had a hard time making it out here is the text in a more legible format:

Greetings and Salutations!

You are invited to a kindergarten party on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2 of the United States Courthouse, 200 W. Eighth Street, Austin, Texas.

The party will feature many exciting and informative lessons, including:

• How to telephone and communicate with a lawyer
• How to enter into reasonable agreements about deposition dates
• How to limit depositions to reasonable subject matter
• Why it is neither cute nor clever to attempt to quash a subpoena for technical failures of service when notice is reasonably given; and
• An advanced seminar on not wasting the time of a busy federal judge and his staff because you are unable to practice law at the level of a first year law student.

Invitation to this exclusive event is not RSVP. Please remember to bring a sack lunch! The United States Marshals have beds available if necessary, so you may wish to bring a toothbrush in case the party runs late.

Like I said – awesome judge, as long as you don’t piss him off.

via Techdirt

Your new word of the day: benchslap, and the awesome judge responsible for it is a post from: The Inquisitr

In 1986, Robin Antonick (note his prominently displayed name in the shot above) was hired by EA to work on John Madden Football (as it was known then) for the Commodore 64, MS-DOS and Apple II. Antonick signed a development contract that promised him 1.5 percent of the profits from any “derivative works” made for different hardware.

Zip forward 25 years and Antonick says he hasn’t been paid royalties since 1992. Worse still for EA, he wants his cut of the $4 billion the Madden games have generated for the publisher over the last two decades. As per his complaint:

“Only recently, as a result of publicity surrounding the 20th Anniversary of the Madden videogame did Antonick become aware that Electronic Arts did not independently develop subsequent versions of its Madden NFL software. Instead, according to recent statements by Electronic Arts founder Trip Hawkins, the current generation of software apparently derived from software developed by Antonick.”

The lawsuit also outlines the innovations the original John Madden game brought to digital football. These include 11-player sides, 3D camera technologies, and instant replay features. Antonick’s lawyers argue that these mechanics are still integral in Madden today, and argue their client is thus owed millions of dollars in royalties.

[Reuters, via VG247]

EA getting sued by creator of first Madden game is a post from: The Inquisitr

A new Facebook game called BlingVille has apparently pissed off Zynga, the company behind hits FarmVille and CityVille, because it uses the ‘Ville‘ suffix. Zynga – like the schoolyard bully it is – is preparing to take BlingVille developer BlingVille LLC to court, and wants to trademark the ‘Ville’ syllable.

BlingVille LLC has already received a cease and desist letter from those Zynga charmers, but to its credit is fighting back, despite Zynga’s size. The smaller company instantly filed a letter to the West Virginia U.S. District Court, requesting a declaration from the court that BlingVille doesn’t infringe on Zynga’s trademarks.

All in all, it’s a pretty scummy, trademark hog move from Zynga, a company that’s not exactly known for it’s original ideas; isn’t that right, Mark Pincus?

[Via GamePolitics]

FarmVille and CityVille creator trying to take down BlingVille is a post from: The Inquisitr

It’s been a tough couple of weeks for the poor old PS3, what with dastardly hackers cracking the system wide open and releasing secret codes that will likely see piracy run rampant.

Having already promised network updates in an attempt to make the system secure again, Sony has now asked for restraining orders to be issued against said hackers. To back up its case, Sony has cited the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and assorted other bigwig laws.

George “Geohot” Hotz (who became the first hacker to break the system this time last year) and the “hacking group” fail0verflow (who developed the latest hack) are specifically targeted by Sony’s request.

If granted by the court tomorrow, the restraining order will (in theory) censor the hackers and see any information about the hacks removed from the web with a temporary restraining order.

Naturally, that will probably be futile, as trying to wipe information from all over the web is a bit like trying to catch rain in a sieve. It is, at best, a short-term stalling tactic by Sony before it unleashes a bigger lawsuit.

[Via Engadget]

Sony requests restraining order against PS3 hackers is a post from: The Inquisitr

The story of Modern Warfare 2 has been one of success and fortunes. Critics loved it, and consumers lapped it up. The shooter launched late last year, and became the biggest entertainment launch in history, across all forms of entertainment. Publisher Activision sat back as the profits rolled in.

Now, however, things have taken a sour turn. Over the last two months, Modern Warfare 2 developer Infinity Ward has leaked around 26 employees, with many joining a new start-up headed by two former Infinity Ward bigwigs. Suddenly, those mass departures are making more sense.

Earlier today, the “Infinity Ward Employee Group” (IWEG) filed a lawsuit against Activision. They’re alleging that contracts between Activision and Infinity Ward were breached and bonuses have gone unpaid. IWEG wants blood. Or probably just a crapload of unpaid royalties. One of IWEG’s attorneys explained the employees’ side to G4:

“Activision owes my clients approximately $75 million to $125 million dollars. Activision has withheld most of the money to force many of my people to stay, some against their will, so that they would finish the delivery of Modern Warfare 3. That is not what they wanted to do. Many of them. My clients’ are entitled to their money. Activision has no right to withhold their money — our money.”

Anyway, Activision has since issued a response to the lawsuit, suggesting that shit is about to get real:

“Activision believes the action is without merit. Activision retains the discretion to determine the amount and the schedule of bonus payments for MW2 and has acted consistent with its rights and the law at all times. We look forward to getting judicial confirmation that our position is right.”

So they’re fighting it. This is going to be messy.

[Via G4]

Modern Warfare 2 developers file lawsuit against Activision is a post from: The Inquisitr

For some time now, Nintendo has been railing against the R4 mod cartridge for its Nintendo DS console. This cart allows users to download DS games to a mini-SD card, and then play them, via the R4, on their handhelds – and it’s become disturbingly popular amongst DS owners.

Now, DS owners in Australia may struggle to get their hands on one. That’s because Nintendo just won a lawsuit against an Aussie distributor of the device. RSJ IT Solutions has now been ordered to stop selling the R4, and pay Nintendo AU$520,000 (US$466,752) damages to Nintendo. Two other individuals named by Nintendo, Patrick Li and James Li, have been fined AU$100,000 (US$89,760).

This is the second time in the last few days that Nintendo has enjoyed success against game pirates. Last week, in a ludicrous example of a punishment not fitting the crime, James Burt – one man – was ordered to pay corporate behemoth Nintendo AU$1.5 million (US$1.3 million) for uploading a copy of New Super Mario Bros. Wii to a file-sharing site.

On the face of it, this decision seems more justifiable. After all, these guys were in it for profit (unlike poor Burt), and probably cost Nintendo a hell of a lot more game sales.

I would say it’s a blow for the DS homebrew scene, which produces plenty of legal, free, and excellent software, but if you’re knowledgeable about Nintendo DS homebrew, you probably know that other, similar cartridges are available.

[iTNews, via Joystiq]

Nintendo wins another battle against piracy in Australia is a post from: The Inquisitr

An Aussie gamer who illegally uploaded a copy of New Super Mario Bros. Wii has been ordered to pay maker Nintendo AU$1.5 million ($1.3 million) in what many are calling a landmark decision for game companies. James Burt, 24, will also have to pay a further AU$100,000 in court costs. In Mario terms, that’s a lot of gold coins.

In case you hadn’t guessed from the title, I find this utterly ludicrous, and a perfect example of how punishments for game piracy are vastly disproportionate to the crime.

Let’s get this straight from the beginning, before I haul out my soapbox: what James Burt did was wrong, and he deserves to be prosecuted. Piracy is theft, and it should be tackled by the law. It damages the games industry, and often seriously affects smaller developers and publishers. I don’t blame Nintendo one bit for taking action.

Yet there’s punishing somebody, and then there’s completely ruining their life. Burt, who works at a Brisbane freight forwarding company, will now spend the rest of his life paying back this ridiculous fine – at 24, he is essentially tied to a colossal debt until the day he dies.

Is that a morally justifiable punishment for somebody who uploaded a $50 game without even attempting to make a financial gain? Once again, the law is an ass. (As an aside, New Super Mario Bros. Wii recently sold its ten millionth copy. I think Nintendo will get by, with or without James Burt’s lifetime earnings.)

Oh, I know the counter-arguments already. Through his foolish actions, James Burt cost Nintendo revenue from sales of the game. And that’s true, he probably did. But how much revenue? Nobody knows. Nintendo Australia head Rose Lappin has since said that Burt’s upload was downloaded by more than 50,000 people around the world, causing what she called “untold losses.”

“Untold” is the key word here. Lappin has no way of demonstrating that all 50,000 downloaders would have bought the game – it is simply unprovable. Yet that hasn’t stopped the courts from dropping a completely arbitrary fine on Burt. Until we get a proper study of how piracy actually affects sales of games, then this kind of thing will happen again and again.

Game piracy is a crime. Like all crimes, it requires a punishment that fits.

[Via The Daily Telegraph]

So wrong: Aussie game pirate told to pay Nintendo $1.5 million is a post from: The Inquisitr

“i think Kurt would despise this game alone let alone this avatar.”

So said Courtney Love on how she thought Kurt Cobain may perceive his digital likeness in Guitar Hero 5. The above claim was tweeted by Love back in September 2009, but now things are different, it seems. In an interview with the NME, Love says her late husband would find his appearance in Guitar Hero 5 “really funny.”

“What pisses me off the most about it is I think Kurt would be fine with having five Kurt Cobains singing the (Spice Girls) song Wannabe, like, ‘Tell me what you want, what you really really want,’ Love told the music mag. “I think he’d find that really funny.”

Oh great, so you’re dropping that lawsuit against Activision then, Courtney? Oh …

“But at the same time it’s gross what they did. Gwen [Stefani - another stroppy star suing Activision for how her band No Doubt appears in Band Hero] started the lawsuit. I have really good lawyers now and will join that lawsuit.”

So in conclusion, Courtney Love:

1. Thinks Kurt would despise Guitar Hero 5.
2. Thinks Kurt would find Guitar Hero 5 really funny.
3. Is still suing Activision, despite signing away Cobain’s likeness on a contract.
4. Has a coke mountain that’s looking a little low.

Great, glad we got that all sorted.

[NME, via Contact Music, via Kotaku]

Courtney Love: Kurt would find Guitar Hero 5 “really funny” is a post from: The Inquisitr

Fast forward to this month, and the band is getting countersued by Activision, which is alleging a breach of contract and “unjust enrichment.” Apparently, the group only requested that their avatars be prevented from being used in songs by other bands until after the game wento to press:

“Activision admits that although it is possible to program a videogame whereby particular in-game characters can only be selected when certain songs are played, Plaintiff first requested this only after the “Band Hero” programming was finalized, had been submitted to all of the U.S. console manufacturers for approval and had been approved for manufacture by most console manufacturers”

Furthermore, Activision is after:

“… unspecified damages and interest, a return from No Doubt of all benefits and payments, an order for No Doubt to pay the full cost of this action and reasonable attorney fees, along with further awards and relief that the Court deems just and proper.”

I’m not sure who I want to lose this more: a diva band that has killed my ears with blandness for the last decade, or the inherently evil Activision.

[Hollywood Reporter, via GamePolitics]

No Doubt gets countersued by Activision is a post from: The Inquisitr

Last week, Microsoft started rocking its banhammer in a big way, permanently banning 1 million Xbox Live users from the online gaming service for playing on a modded Xbox 360. But was Microsoft’s choice to ban 5% of the Xbox Live community a bit too conveniently timed?

Boutique law firm AbingtonIP thinks so, and argues that the timing of the bannings – which took place shortly before the launch of Modern Warfare 2 – was deliberate. By cutting users off just before the year’s biggest game arrived, AbingtonIP claims that Microsoft netted a ton of money from potential Xbox Live subscribers, before banning their modded consoles.

Of course, by the letter of the law, Microsoft would seem to be in the right – modding your console does violate the Xbox Live Terms of Service. Yet banning so many users when it did could land Microsoft in trouble for what Joystiq legal columnist Mark Methenitis calls a “deceptive business practice concern.”

AbingtonIP is currently investigating the case before it considers bringing a class action lawsuit to obtain a refund for the sums of money left on the banned Xbox Live subscriptions.

[Via Joystiq]

Microsoft could face legal action over mass Xbox 360 bannings is a post from: The Inquisitr

Californian band No Doubt appears in Band Hero, the latest entry in Activision’s long line of Hero videogames. However, all is not well in the land of licensed music videogame spin-offs.

TMZ reports that band members are unhappy about how their in-game avatars can be used to “sing, dance, and perform” any of the sixty songs in the game, only three of which are by No Doubt themselves. This, claims a lawsuit filed by the band against Activision, “transformed No Doubt band members into a virtual karaoke circus act.”

A particular sore point for the band is the fact that Gwen Stefani’s digital avatar can be used to sing about “having sex with prostitutes” in “Honky Tonk Woman” by the Rolling Stones … in a male voice. That said, Activision seems ready to fight its corner on this, according to a statement it just released:

“Activision has a written agreement to use No Doubt in Band Hero – an agreement signed by No Doubt after extensive negotiations with its representatives, who collectively have decades of experience in the entertainment industry [...] Activision believes it is within its legal rights with respect to the use and portrayal of the band members in the game and that this lawsuit is without merit.”

If you’re sat there thinking, “This totally reminds me of a very similar, recent story,” you may be thinking of Courtney Love’s promise to “sue the shit” out of Activision for its (admittedly tactless) use of Kurt Cobain’s image in Guitar Hero 5.

Personally I don’t get these claims made by artists. I mean, as if anybody actually looks at what’s going on in the background when playing these things. Seriously, I’m so bloody focused on those scrolling bars of colored dots during gameplay that there could be four pieces of human-sized broccoli playing the instruments and I’d be none the wiser.

[Via TMZ]

No Doubt suing Activision over ‘Band Hero’ appearance is a post from: The Inquisitr

EA is facing a courtroom battle with Cleveland Browns super-fan/man with too much time John Big Dawg Thompson, after the latter was allegedly depicted in the company’s Madden NFL ’09.

Thompson, who legally changed his name to include his nickname, shows up at every Browns game in the bug-eyed dog mask and No.98 jersey you see above, bellowing support from the ‘Dawg Pound,’ a section behind the east end zone in Cleveland Browns Stadium.

A very similar dog mask-wearing fan (only wearing a No.92 jersey) is occasionally seen in Madden NFL 09, and now Thompson has picked up the scent of possible free money. He’s filed a complaint against EA in the Cuyahoga Country Court of Common Pleas for “the alleged unauthorized and unlicensed use of his Big Dawg persona.”

The bad news for EA: he wants $25,000 (which, incidentally, would fund 1,390 Rubber Chew Bones).

[Via Gamespot]

Cleveland Browns fan suing EA over Madden ’09 appearance is a post from: The Inquisitr

I’m sure you’ve seen Evony advertised online by now. Its faintly naff adverts, like the one above, are everywhere you turn on the ‘net these days, promoting what many reviewers have said is a derivative, piss-poor browser-based strategy game.

Not only that, but controversy over Evony has been rampant, whether it concerns the game’s ‘hidden charges’ (while advertised as free, real money is often required to excel in Evony), accusations of spam promotion, those crappy adverts, or the alleged links to WoWMine, a shady Chinese operation known for online gold farming.

Leading the fight against Evony is “veteran games industry marketer” Bruce Everiss, who has used his blog, Bruce on Games, to try and expose what he believes are dodgy dealings at Evony. Today, Evony LLC bit back. The company in charge of the game has filed a lawsuit against Everiss, stating:

“For several weeks we have worked to avoid taking our grievances into the legal courts, hoping instead to persuade Mr. Everiss to come clean and stop his online campaign of mistruths and outright falsities. His attacks have caused significant damage to our brand and the gaming experience for Evony’s millions of users and fans around the world.”

As the chaps at Evony LLC are clearly a litigious bunch, I think I’ll hold my tongue on this for now.

[Bruce on Games, via Destructoid]

Blogger being sued by makers of Evony is a post from: The Inquisitr

Courtney Love has hopped back on the Crazy Train, ranting at Activision for its portrayal of Kurt Cobain in Guitar Hero 5. That is, the portrayal that she approved.

There’s been an outcry about Cobain’s appearance in the game, and not just because you can watch the Nirvana frontman’s avatar sing along to Flavor Flav. Commentators have argued that Cobain’s memory has been exploited and soiled by his inclusion in a product that he would have had little interest in endorsing.

Getting him in the game reportedly took three years of negotiations, with Love, Universal Publishing, and (former Nirvana drummer) Dave Grohl all involved. Now, Love denies (via her Twitter feed) that she approved the Cobain avatar, while exhibiting the spelling and grammatical prowess of a drunk manatee:

“FOR THE RECORD I DID NOT APPROVE KURTS AVATAR FOR GUYITARHERO5. i think Kurt would despise this game alone let alone this avatar”

This directly contradicts a statement made by Activision’s Tim Riley, from last month:

“Courtney supplied us with photos and videos and knew exactly what she wanted Kurt to look like. She picked the wardrobe and hair style, which turned out to be the ‘Teen Spirit’ look, then we went back and forth over changes – some subtle, some not so subtle.”

Alas, it sounds like Love will not be deterred in her attempts to take Activision down. Labelling the publisher a “bully,” she adds:

“WE are going to sue the s[***] out of ACtivision we being the Trust the Estate the LLC the various LLCs Cobain Enterprises”

Man, who knew selling off your deceased anti-establishment husband’s image for use in a multi-billion dollar videogame franchise could end badly? Apart from everyone over five years old, obv.

[Love's Twitter, via Giant Bomb]

Courtney Love planning to “sue the s***” out of Activision is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the most common discussions that occurs over Web 2.0 services is their Terms of Service (TOS) agreements that we all have to agree to in order to use their products. Some of these TOS are more onerous that others but they are an inescapable part of our online world. This could all change if a recent decision by a Texas court.

The court case in question was the one filed against Blockbuster and over whether or not the company could change its Terms of Service at a moment’s notice. In Harris v. Blockbuster the judge said that Blockbuster’s online terms of service was “illusionary” and unenforceable because Blockbuster had reserved the right to change the terms of service at any time.

The opinion if followed by other courts could have significant implications for all websites, and social media services, that have terms of service agreements.

District Court in Texas Rejects Online Terms of Service as Illusory and Unenforceable

Court decision could shake up online user agreements is a post from: The Inquisitr

Granted this is a ruling by a judge in Ontario Canada so chances are the rest of the world will probably give out a big YAWN along with a who cares but it is interesting to see the judge’s reasoning for her opinion. It involves civil litigation suit due to a vehicle accident where the judge ordered one of the parties involved to hand over the contents of their private Facebook account.

The judge’s opinion (via Michael Geist)

a court can infer from the social networking purpose of Facebook, and the applications it offers to users such as the posting of photographs, that users intend to take advantage of Facebook’s applications to make personal information available to others.  From the general evidence about Facebook filed on this motion it is clear that Facebook is not used as a means by which account holders carry on monologues with themselves; it is a device by which users share with others information about who they are, what they like, what they do, and where they go, in varying degrees of detail.  Facebook profiles are not designed to function as diaries; they enable users to construct personal networks or communities of “friends” with whom they can share information about themselves, and on which “friends” can post information about the user.

[picture courtesy of Top Tech News]

Judge says a private Facebook account isn’t so private is a post from: The Inquisitr

According to the judge, though, the kids’ creation doesn’t qualify as defamation. The profile, the court said, contained “over-the-top statements” and could not be considered an “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Basically, the profile was an obvious parody, as opposed to a harmful attack.

The judge did give the students a verbal lashing, saying they “should know that appropriating the identity of a teacher or school administrator to create a fraudulent Internet social profile is unacceptable and that engaging in such conduct will have consequences.” Other than that, though, case closed.

It’s an interesting scenario. Sure, most would say that the kids probably shouldn’t have made the profile. Does it, though, warrant a lawsuit and costly court battle — particularly if, as it sounds, it was quite obvious that the profile didn’t really belong to the principal and was not legit? One might contend that the principal did more damage to her reputation by filing the lawsuit than she would have by disciplining the kids, making sure the page was taken down, and moving on.

I guess it’s the modern-day equivalent of a fake love letter from a teacher or an objectionable scrawling on a bathroom stall wall — with the key difference, of course, being the worldwide accessibility. Seemingly, though, it won’t become a criminal offense in this regard, if the precedent set here is any indication.

Judge: Fake Profile Not Defamation is a post from: The Inquisitr