Well, according to Miriam-Webester, their definition of cheating is -
1cheat
verb \ˈchēt\
: to break a rule or law usually to gain an advantage at something
: to take something from (someone) by lying or breaking a rule
: to prevent (someone) from having something that he or she deserves or was expecting to get
Full Definition of CHEAT
transitive verb
1
: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2
: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3
: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>
intransitive verb
1
a : to practice fraud or trickery
b : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>
2
: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on <was cheating on his wife>
3
: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>
When I was in college in a law class (only level 101 for my own Major) we were told that to many times try to picture the scenario in a Courtroom. If there is wiggle-room and the accusations can be countered and come down to a matter of opinion, the judge would have to toss the suit out of court. He would have no real choice otherwise the legal "Pandora's Box" would arise and become an entire slippery slope of claims and suits spinning out of control.
This situation seems to be, at worst, taking advantage of, which in itself is not cheating, as no laws or rules are being broken. And since there are no clear and precise "rules" by Nintendo, if they are even in a position to litigate which I doubt they would, any judge worth his salt would toss this out.
Is it taking advantage? Certainly. But is it illegal or truly cheating? I highly doubt it. However, that is so subjective one way or another that there is no clear answer. The judge would have to dismiss this if it were a case.
Gah...I hope this was a good example. My professor was so much better with this such scenarios.
- - - Post Merge - - -
Not intended + taking advantage of = cheating.
Snipped a bit. But no, not really. Say a dress shop puts a line of clothing on sale to draw in more customers. Say some of the dresses are super expensive and they underestimated the amount of people who would come and buy so much that they lost money and were shoved mercilessly into the Red.
Not intentional for that to have happened, but the customers did nothing wrong. No, the results to harm the business were not intentional, but taking advantage of a great sale is not illegal or cheating. Even if the customers knew what could happen, they were not acting in an illegal manner. Again, this sort of case would be dismissed. So, unintentional and taking advantage of does not equal cheating. Likely not in many, many cases. I'm not defending this sort of thing, but simply being realistic about it. Simply feeling strongly about something does not make it "right or wrong" in many scenarios. The subjectivity is the main problem here.
