JEBWrench said:
danpascooch said:
JEBWrench said:
Where'd they break the law?
At the time when the feature was being advertised, the feature was there.
You can't be nailed for false advertising over a changing situation. As far as I know, the PS3 ads haven't mentioned Linux for quite some time.
If they still mention it, then yes, that would be.
You can be retroactively nailed with false advertising if you make those changes retroactively.
If they didn't include it in a future product, that's one thing, but when they change something on an already purchased product, they are subject to the constraints of advertising that was made when that product was purchased.
not sure anybody mentioned it before (i didn't read much beyond page 1), but under EULA you already waved your rights to changing situation. Hence, Sony is actually entitled to change EVERYTHING about PS3 WITHOUT prior notification NOR agreement with consumers. If you agree on EULA you basically signed a unilateral contract in Sony's favor.
Ok TS i noe you mentioned don't mention the EULA, you are misguided, the EULA comes heavily into the picture becuz Sony will say it is entitled to make future changes. Hence any potential lawsuits will actually circle around 2 things:
1) When did Sony make the changes? Did somebody got influenced by PS3's Linux support and hence bought it and to realize that Sony stopped the said support in a time that is reasonably too short. If the court thing the time lapse between promises and changes are reasonable, then yes it is Sony's rights to do so unilaterally, however if Sony made the said changes say 1 day after most of the consumers signed the EULA, then most likely it'll not be able to use EULA to protect itself, for it'll constitute not false advertising, but actually fraud, becuz it is an intention to deceive for monetary benefits. Hence this lawsuit will actually set precedence over what is deemed reasonable for support e.g. patches and online multiplayer to be unplugged by companies.
For example, many of us will buy Starcraft 2 for it's Battlenet. What if Blizzard pull out Battlenet 1 mth after sales of SC2 has stopped? Are they entitled to do that? Is the timeframe reasonable?
The reasonability test will be contested by both sides of lawyers. But ultimately, the judge (from where i come from) or the jury (who will be instructed by the judge for jury system) will be asked to use the degree of influence e.g. how important the function of the product is to an end user for him to buy it. Sometimes, the importance of function might make the function the product itself. That will be what the plaintiff will want to prove and the defendant (Sony) will vehemently prove otherwise. (and back to TS, hence wadever u said that popularity of Linux is not important again is not true)
2) Another potential lawsuit may be to target the EULA directly. E.g. Court can void the EULA contract by declaring it unfair. Consumers can claimed that they can only sign the EULA becuz they had no choice (no choice here doesn't mean that someone put a gun on their head, but rather becuz Sony is a big corporation and they could not find any suitable substitutes WITHOUT the EULA to serve their same purpose. This to me sets an even bigger precedent should the court deem the EULA unfair to consumers. For EULA applies not only to games, but to many of your day to day stuff. For example, cable tv (yes they are entitled to STOP showing some channels without proper compensation under their contract, just that sometimes they pay you guys back out of "goodwill" and not to ruffle feathers in the community) or telecommunication (same thing as TV, but they can happily stop serving you, and you wonder why u can never sue them if you never get reception for your handphone)
Why this is important, till now, I'm not aware of any class action they target any unfair EULA. Companies have been quite reasonable in their management of unilateral contracts for they also know that 1 spoil apple in their midst will screw the entire industry over. I can see where they are coming from, can u imagine making changes with the need to consult like ALL their consumers and then get a popular vote? Even if the popular vote passes, they're still exposed to minority interests and potential lawsuits from minorities. Hence i believe personally that if we fight on the EULA we'll most prob lose as it has too big and implication. It is like some necessary evil.
Most prob, any lawsuit will be fighting on point 1). Oh btw, i doubt you guys know the difference between invitation to treat vs promises in advertisements. Sony could actually claim that the whole Linux thing is an invitation to treat rather than a promise under contract. This will actually be the facts of the case that they'll need to agree on (or perhaps another lawsuit to define facts of the case) before they either fight on point 1) or 2) or both.
oh also lastly, when you purchase something, there is a possibility that u do not OWN it under the strict legal sense. There is a difference between economic rights and legal rights. You could haf actually paid for the economic rights (e.g. ability to enjoy it) but not legal rights (owning it) TS, i sense that you might be quite young (no offence there) and i also feel that you are having a very myopic stance on definitions. Try not to be super imposing on others on your definitions when there are many possibilities out there e.g. different countries might haf different definitions of "owning rights" I also dislike the way you try to limit the scope of discussion when 1) you do not really have a full grasp of the issue 2) your limitation seem to restrict people to either agree with you or shut up. This is not conducive for a proper discussion. As i've showned, 2 of ur limitations are actually part of the legal case which you have happily jumped the gun in your zest to prove your point rather than to seek proper discussion. =) i'm saying this as respectfully as possible so please do not take offence but rather i'll hope we can have more meaningful discussion on legal matters.
