It is wonderful when legal theorists study, digest, and then write about the organic growh of the law, but it is unfortunate when they don't take the time to properly develop or discover the facts but instead erect legos of dreams so they can achieve their otherwise unobtainable conclusions.
Witness "A PASSIVE APPROACH TO REGULATION OF VIRTUAL WORLDS" by then graduating law school student, Jacob Rodgers, who in 2008 was published as follows (footnotes omitted as they provided little support):
"In this country, a complaint filed in May 200643 demonstrates the type of serious dispute that will arise more often as virtual worlds become more popular. By exploiting a glitch in the Second Life system,
Marc Bragg was able to acquire property at substantially reduced prices. According to Mr. Bragg, Linden Lab—the creator of Second Life—subsequently cut off his account, refusing to grant a credit or
refund. Mr. Bragg, who happens to be an attorney specializing in consumer rights and cyberlaw cases, then sued Linden Lab.46 The suit sought $8000 in damages for breach of a virtual-land-auction contract
and for violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Mr. Bragg later withdrew that suit in order to file a much larger claim (more than $75,000)48 in a higher-level state
Firstly it was never established that the auction system utilized was a "glitch" or intentionally provided, or that anything was exploited. But equally important, is the simple documented fact that I did not withdraw the suit in order to file a much larger claim. Here the writer assumes a point to prove his theory, or either failed the class on federal civil procedure, or didn't read the removal rules. Defendant Linden Labs / Second Life removed the case to federal court. They claimed in their filings with the federal court that the value of the case at that time was higher than the $8,000 I was seeking in Pennsylvania's small claims court.
So be it....