Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[rddj623]

I know, but either way, their cost analysis isn't public, and the fear of a lawsuit can be a strong motivator for companies to not try something like this.

True! Here's to hoping!

 

[Silver Patriot]

And yes, I can punch you in the face over the internet, it's a new feature

We're actually removing that feature. You can keep it but your keyboard won't work.

I don't even own a PS3, PC gamerz 4 lyfe yo, but these suits definitely have my support. Precedent is a dangerous thing.

Yes it is. That's why the Datel vs. Microsoft thing also has me worried. Though Microsoft says Apple already set the precedent [http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/26/microsoft-files-motion-to-dismiss-datel-suit-cites-apple-and-ot/].

In any case, they have my support.

 

[Danpascooch]

And yes, I can punch you in the face over the internet, it's a new feature

We're actually removing that feature. You can keep it but your keyboard won't work.

I don't even own a PS3, PC gamerz 4 lyfe yo, but these suits definitely have my support. Precedent is a dangerous thing.

Yes it is. That's why the Datel vs. Microsoft thing also has me worried. Though Microsoft says Apple already set the precedent [http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/26/microsoft-files-motion-to-dismiss-datel-suit-cites-apple-and-ot/].

In any case, they have my support.

Thanks, and much like Microsoft is now saying "Apple set the precedent" so shall other companies say "Sony set the precedent" in future cases like these if Sony wins, that's the danger, I'm glad you see it!

 

[oktalist]

The following quotes are from spartan231490's posts on this thread, #151 and #153. I have removed his name from the quote tags per his request.

i live in america, and these bs lawsuits are doing exactly what he said they are, they are destroying the american legal system, i'll even give you an example. [snip]

Poor example, family was in the right IMO.

Another thing "bs lawsuits" do is dent the perceived legitimacy of reasonable lawsuits like this Sony one.

This is the danger of "frivilous lawsuits" as they are called. And if any one of these lawsuits wins, I intend to nominate them for a stella award.

Those awards are such a reckless institution, promoting the idea that the legal system can't figure out for itself which lawsuits are frivolous and which are not, as if it's run by a bunch of children who need to have their hands held by opinion columnists.

There is already a simple system for discouraging frivolous lawsuits: any lawyer bringing a suit that can be shown by the court to be frivolous can be struck off the bar.

With the user agreement it is definitely reasonable to assume that the user should have been aware that thier linux could be taken from online support. Once again, there is nothing that guarentees when you a buy a console that new games will continue to be made for it, so the inability to play new games, which u are warned about, doesnt count.

All those warnings appear after you have bought it and opened the box. The law says they can not take away features that were advertised on exterior of the box, just by putting a notice inside the box that says "by the way, we were lying about a few of those claims on the box."

Yes there is no guarantee that games will continue to be made for PS3s after you have bought your PS3. There is, however, the guarantee that your PS3 will continue to be able to play all games made for PS3s after you have bought it.

any losses that sony suffers will translate into higher prices

Freedom isn't free.

these frivilous lawsuits degrade the very concepts of justice and responsibility

No, you're doing that all by yourself.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

SNIP

Whatever floats your boat.
I'll be sure to sue a company over some other bullshit and make a stupid profit the next time the issue arises.
Personal responsibility, and getting over shit people. It's that simple.

You're very wrong, and shall always be so in my mind.
The law may have corrected a company, but it just destroyed humanity a little bit more.

Good to see that logical reasoning and legality come up short yet again when faced with the twin guns of Appeal to Emotion and flawed comparisons. I fail to see how "personal responsibility" plays ANY part in this, unless you're trying to say SONY should have taken personal responsibility for backing out of an advertised claim they made, where you had to purchase the product to even FIND the freaking tiny "we might change this later" bit.

"Getting over ****?" Wow. Okay. Go back to my hamburger analogy, or the OP's car analogy. Would you really be so charitable if you were in either of those situations? Or to use the actual situation, what if you were the Air Force and had just purchased 1 million dollars worth of PS3s to use as Linux boxes, then later Sony removes Linux functionality and you're screwed out of that money, when it was ADVERTISED ON THE BOX that the PS3 could use Linux. Again, you had to BUY THE PRODUCT FIRST to find the caveat in the EULA. That. Is. Freaking. Unfair. Also, if EULAs are in themselves not legally binding (usually they are not), how can we justify an EULA that is breaking the law/is deceptive?

Your opinion seems filled with ignorance, personal bias and a blanket hatred of lawsuits which I find perplexing. In all this anti-lawsuit backlash, some people seem to have forgotten how lawsuits are a legal recourse we (the public, the little guys) have for taking big business to task for their misdeeds. This is one such instance.

Edit: Good show, octalist!

 

[nipsen]

It's important that we don't let companies get away with things like that, which is why I support this lawsuit.

*nods* it is..

Ahh, well I meant the information that was going around before system was on sale saying that if you played ANY disc one time on the PS3 in your house, that DISC would be useless on any other PS3, an attempt to remove used games (and likely) the rental of games as well.

Yeah, I heard about it a while back. It's doable, I guess. Just will be very expensive, possibly be unreliable, and probably cause too many support-problems.

 

[Mikkaddo]

Ahh, well I meant the information that was going around before system was on sale saying that if you played ANY disc one time on the PS3 in your house, that DISC would be useless on any other PS3, an attempt to remove used games (and likely) the rental of games as well.

Yeah, I heard about it a while back. It's doable, I guess. Just will be very expensive, possibly be unreliable, and probably cause too many support-problems.

oh, I have no doubt it would cause support problems, not to mention how many companies would honestly go along with it? would you really want to support a company refusing to let people have a game as long as they buy it new, but not let them play it anywhere but the original system? the sheer number of sales would drop SO fast, and SO far that there would be no reversal.

 

[omega 616]

I just have to say, why do you care?

Why are you on this little crusade to right all these corporations wrong doings? You might say all these things are not legal arguments but if nobody (figuratively speaking) used it, it was a security risk and it was easier to just get rid than fix it, why bother fixing it.

It's a business, think like a business man, do you fix something nobody uses at a cost or cut it completely thus removing the problem.

Sony had to know a bunch of money grabbing people would try and sue them before they even announced they were going to cut it, so they probably had there lawyers whip something up (Just guessing though).

Seems any chance to grab a bit of extra cash and people will jump on it. We have law suits to take on companies that fuck us over, nobody except the US air force was fucked over. Which leads me nicely onto ...

What kind of rag tag operation are the U.S air force running? Using 2,000+ PS3's instead of a super computer, it seems like all the nerds over there said "do you know what would be a laugh, instead of a super computer, we get a stupid amount of PS3's and connect them up, we could even keep one to play MW2. Hahaha".

Your making out like there covering up a murder, it's removing an unused feature. Whats the saying? Your make a mountain out of a mole hill.

It would also mean Sony would go bankrupt, due to the flood of people suing them since the precedence has been set.

To the guy below, are you looking for mod wrath?

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

I'm pretty sure that it's been proved that the PS3 has no games.

 

[CustomMagnum]

I just have to say, why do you care?

I didn't read all of it but I read alot.

Firstly, why are you on this little crusade to right all these corporations wrong doings? You might say all these things are not legal arguments but if nobody (figuratively speaking) used it, it was a security risk and it was easier to just get rid than fix it, why bother fixing it.

It's a business, think like a business man, do you fix something nobody uses at a cost or cut it completely thus removing the problem.

Sony had to know a bunch of money grabbing people would try and sue them before they even announced they were going to cut it, so they probably had there lawyers whip something up (Just guessing though).

Secondly, what kind of rag tag operation are the U.S air force running? Using 2,000+ PS3's instead of a super computer, it seems like all the nerds over there said "do you know what would be a laugh, instead of a super computer, we get a stupid amount of PS3's and connect them up, we could even keep one to play MW2. Hahaha".

Your making out like there covering up a murder, it's removing an unused feature. Whats the saying? Your make a mountain out of a mole hill.

He cares because Sony removed a feature that they used in advertising as a reason to 1.) buy a PS3 and 2.) Buy a PS3 for the ridiculous price Sony was asking for back then, and then removed it from the consoles that were PURCHASED back when it was an advertised feature.

And if you don't install the update that removes the "Other OS" feature, then congratulations, you can't play the newer games on the PS3, nor can you access the playstation network, or watch newer Blu-Ray movies. So basically, you're forced by Sony to break your console one way or break it the other.

EDIT: That's false advertising, since all that was advertised back then and is being removed. Which is illegal./EDIT

As for the air force thing, that's irrelevant to this discussion, there's no reason to update the firmware on those PS3s as they're being used solely for the processing power that linking thousands of them together can give at a ridiculously reduced cost to using normal computers for it. They aren't going to be updated. Sure the air force is upset about there no longer being an "Other OS" option, but that's because they can't replace broken parts the PS3 cluster they set up.

 

[ClunkiestTurtle]

I disagree with the lawsuit and while you make a good argument remember the fact the they didn't have to include the support other OS option in the first place and there was very little in it for them by doing so and it was the only console of this generation or the last to support such an option.

As a Consumer you're probably right and i should be concerned at this but as a gamer i'm just saddened it will be yet another reason for console manufactures to just play things safe and be less inclined to experiment with different options and features.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you

 

[Liberaliter]

Why are you so worked up about this OP? I don't own a PS3, I don't care, I have bigger things to worry about then some Linux support.

 

[omega 616]

He cares because Sony removed a feature that they used in advertising as a reason to 1.) buy a PS3 and 2.) Buy a PS3 for the ridiculous price Sony was asking for back then, and then removed it from the consoles that were PURCHASED back when it was an advertised feature.

And if you don't install the update that removes the "Other OS" feature, then congratulations, you can't play the newer games on the PS3, nor can you access the playstation network, or watch newer Blu-Ray movies. So basically, you're forced by Sony to break your console one way or break it the other.

EDIT: That's false advertising, since all that was advertised back then and is being removed. Which is illegal./EDIT

As for the air force thing, that's irrelevant to this discussion, there's no reason to update the firmware on those PS3s as they're being used solely for the processing power that linking thousands of them together can give at a ridiculously reduced cost to using normal computers for it. They aren't going to be updated. Sure the air force is upset about there no longer being an "Other OS" option, but that's because they can't replace broken parts the PS3 cluster they set up.

Sorry but, so? I got a PS3 at launch and I never even knew about Linux on it and when they announced it would be removed I had to ring my brother to find out what the hell it did. Yeah, I am not very computer savvy.

I am pretty sure the price was down to more than Linux, Bluray was probably a big part of the price.

I know about the results of not installing the firmware update but how many people who own PS3's ever even used Linux? 10,000 max.? Considering something like 40 million have been sold, it's a tiny percentage.

False advertising is bad but in the grand scheme of things it isn't a big deal, in addition to my last point, it kind of makes it redundant.

I never brought the air force thing up, the OP did.

 

[Danpascooch]

The following quotes are from spartan231490's posts on this thread, #151 and #153. I have removed his name from the quote tags per his request.

i live in america, and these bs lawsuits are doing exactly what he said they are, they are destroying the american legal system, i'll even give you an example. [snip]

Poor example, family was in the right IMO.

Another thing "bs lawsuits" do is dent the perceived legitimacy of reasonable lawsuits like this Sony one.

This is the danger of "frivilous lawsuits" as they are called. And if any one of these lawsuits wins, I intend to nominate them for a stella award.

Those awards are such a reckless institution, promoting the idea that the legal system can't figure out for itself which lawsuits are frivolous and which are not, as if it's run by a bunch of children who need to have their hands held by opinion columnists.

There is already a simple system for discouraging frivolous lawsuits: any lawyer bringing a suit that can be shown by the court to be frivolous can be struck off the bar.

With the user agreement it is definitely reasonable to assume that the user should have been aware that thier linux could be taken from online support. Once again, there is nothing that guarentees when you a buy a console that new games will continue to be made for it, so the inability to play new games, which u are warned about, doesnt count.

All those warnings appear after you have bought it and opened the box. The law says they can not take away features that were advertised on exterior of the box, just by putting a notice inside the box that says "by the way, we were lying about a few of those claims on the box."

Yes there is no guarantee that games will continue to be made for PS3s after you have bought your PS3. There is, however, the guarantee that your PS3 will continue to be able to play all games made for PS3s after you have bought it.

any losses that sony suffers will translate into higher prices

Freedom isn't free.

these frivilous lawsuits degrade the very concepts of justice and responsibility

No, you're doing that all by yourself.

Aw hell, I argued with spartan for like 2 hours, and you just outdid me in one post

 

[Danpascooch]

I just have to say, why do you care?

Why are you on this little crusade to right all these corporations wrong doings? You might say all these things are not legal arguments but if nobody (figuratively speaking) used it, it was a security risk and it was easier to just get rid than fix it, why bother fixing it.

It's a business, think like a business man, do you fix something nobody uses at a cost or cut it completely thus removing the problem.

Sony had to know a bunch of money grabbing people would try and sue them before they even announced they were going to cut it, so they probably had there lawyers whip something up (Just guessing though).

Seems any chance to grab a bit of extra cash and people will jump on it. We have law suits to take on companies that fuck us over, nobody except the US air force was fucked over. Which leads me nicely onto ...

What kind of rag tag operation are the U.S air force running? Using 2,000+ PS3's instead of a super computer, it seems like all the nerds over there said "do you know what would be a laugh, instead of a super computer, we get a stupid amount of PS3's and connect them up, we could even keep one to play MW2. Hahaha".

Your making out like there covering up a murder, it's removing an unused feature. Whats the saying? Your make a mountain out of a mole hill.

It would also mean Sony would go bankrupt, due to the flood of people suing them since the precedence has been set.

To the guy below, are you looking for mod wrath?

And how do you know nobody uses it?

I care because of legal precedent, it's important.

 

[Danpascooch]

I disagree with the lawsuit and while you make a good argument remember the fact the they didn't have to include the support other OS option in the first place and there was very little in it for them by doing so and it was the only console of this generation or the last to support such an option.

As a Consumer you're probably right and i should be concerned at this but as a gamer i'm just saddened it will be yet another reason for console manufactures to just play things safe and be less inclined to experiment with different options and features.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you

They didn't have to include it?

Well they did, and some people bought it under that pretense and then it was taken away, that's illegal, and sets a dangerous precedent.

I'm sick of people acting as though a company is doing you a FAVOR by including a feature when you PURCHASED something. People PAYED for that feature, and you act like it was Sony doing them some sort of favor.

 

[Danpascooch]

He cares because Sony removed a feature that they used in advertising as a reason to 1.) buy a PS3 and 2.) Buy a PS3 for the ridiculous price Sony was asking for back then, and then removed it from the consoles that were PURCHASED back when it was an advertised feature.

And if you don't install the update that removes the "Other OS" feature, then congratulations, you can't play the newer games on the PS3, nor can you access the playstation network, or watch newer Blu-Ray movies. So basically, you're forced by Sony to break your console one way or break it the other.

EDIT: That's false advertising, since all that was advertised back then and is being removed. Which is illegal./EDIT

As for the air force thing, that's irrelevant to this discussion, there's no reason to update the firmware on those PS3s as they're being used solely for the processing power that linking thousands of them together can give at a ridiculously reduced cost to using normal computers for it. They aren't going to be updated. Sure the air force is upset about there no longer being an "Other OS" option, but that's because they can't replace broken parts the PS3 cluster they set up.

Sorry but, so? I got a PS3 at launch and I never even knew about Linux on it and when they announced it would be removed I had to ring my brother to find out what the hell it did. Yeah, I am not very computer savvy.

I am pretty sure the price was down to more than Linux, Bluray was probably a big part of the price.

I know about the results of not installing the firmware update but how many people who own PS3's ever even used Linux? 10,000 max.? Considering something like 40 million have been sold, it's a tiny percentage.

False advertising is bad but in the grand scheme of things it isn't a big deal, in addition to my last point, it kind of makes it redundant.

I never brought the air force thing up, the OP did.

In the grand scheme of things it's a HUGE deal, because it sets the legal precedent that companies can strip away features of a device you purchased. Look at the big picture.

Sure it doesn't affect you THIS time, but next time it may be a feature you use on a device you rely on, and you won't be able to do anything about it because Sony set the precedent that this sort of thing is legal because they won this lawsuit

 

[Danpascooch]

Why are you so worked up about this OP? I don't own a PS3, I don't care, I have bigger things to worry about then some Linux support.

I don't own a PS3 anymore either, but it sets a legal precedent that is very dangerous, as I said before:

In the grand scheme of things it's a HUGE deal, because it sets the legal precedent that companies can strip away features of a device you purchased. Look at the big picture.

Sure it doesn't affect you THIS time, but next time it may be a feature you use on a device you rely on, and you won't be able to do anything about it because Sony set the precedent that this sort of thing is legal because they won this lawsuit.

 

[omega 616]

And how do you know nobody uses it?

I care because of legal precedent, it's important.

... I am glad I took the time to type all that out.

I have read many forums and things and I have not seen one person admit to using it, do you? Also if a shed load of people used Linux, I think they would have fixed it rather than scrapping it.

I would be more concerned with bigger things than a small bit of false advertising to be honest.

Atleast people who wanted to use Linux had a small window in which to do so, unlike the 360.

In the grand scheme of things it's a HUGE deal, because it sets the legal precedent that companies can strip away features of a device you purchased. Look at the big picture.

Sure it doesn't affect you THIS time, but next time it may be a feature you use on a device you rely on, and you won't be able to do anything about it because Sony set the precedent that this sort of thing is legal because they won this lawsuit

I am sure it won't effect a darn thing, no company is going to look at this example and think they can pull all kids of features from there products.

Either Sony pay out billions in the flood lawsuits 'cos some money hungry people wanted something for nothing and the flood crushes Sony or Sony wins the lawsuit pays nothing and nothing changes.

 

[Towowo2]

I see it more of along the lines of the principal of the thing. If they remove Other OS whats stopping them from pulling the rug from underneath you on a another feature? The idea for removing a feature for a security hole is pretty laughable.

Removing the feature entirely is a pretty lazy way of addressing the problems anyway.