Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Danpascooch]

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.

The entire EULA is a load of crap because it's a contract you only see after you have already given them your money. It won't hold up in court.

It's not something people could have read and said "because of this, I'm not buying the console"

and I'll say it for the hundredth time, if Sony didn't do anything illegal, they don't need the EULA to back them up, if they did do something illegal, then the law supersedes the EULA, either way, that means the EULA is not relevant.

 

[Danpascooch]

Unfortunate choice there, I don't have a car and I am a mechanic ...

Not the same thing though is it? Or are you going for a hyperbole? I can't tell.

Completely ignoring my analogy and responding to it saying 'oh yeah it doesn't apply to me because I don't have a car is pretty thick. Okay lets take it this way:

Take my analogy, and remove car with computer, replace bolt with key on keyboard, replace mechanic with idiot at computer shop.

Does you keyboard work now that the idiot has taken all the keys off your keyboard and don't come back saying 'Oh I fix it myself so I don't have my keys nicked by the clown at the shop' because then you are just being stupid and refusing to see other peoples points. Don't make me start resorting to sexual analogies about both your balls being taken by the doctor.

I never responded the way you want 'cos it only makes some sense. The PS3 still works, what your implying is after so many years all I am going to have left is a shiny case and a controller.

Exactly, the thread is about discussion, which is why you originally asserting that I chose something unworthy of the time spent on it ("You chose Linux -.-") is so unbelievably idiotic.

And I'll agree to disagree when you shut up and let my thread return to a semblance of logical discussion. I feel obligated to respond to what people say in my thread, but now that you have "agreed to disagree" you have no reason to be here, so why are you still here?

I like how you've been off topic for the last 30 posts, and as soon as I strike a nerve, you ask me how it pertains to the topic.

I never said I am pursuing (not perusing) nothing, I am trying to inform people of the importance of this case.

The first paragraph is taken out of context, so kindly put it back in.

The second one makes out that you have said "I will agree to disagree" before which you haven't.

The third one are you serious? All my posts have always been on topic, besides the ones were I am trying to stop people flaming me. Atleast 3 of yours have been nothing but insults.

One of my nerves hasn't even been touched in years, I am going to bed now, so your rid of me.

Sony have every right to remove what they want from there product, let them get on with it and lets stop trying to take money.

You know, taking something out of context only makes a difference when it means something different in context. I could throw that back into the paragraph if you want, but it's still the exact same assertion

 

[Danpascooch]

If all you ever talk about are legal bullshit and legal bullshit then why should anyone care, doesn't seem to concern many people except for lawyers apparently.

This thread doesn't talk about "Why I should support the 'other OS' lawsuit", it talks about how our opinions doesn't matter since they don't matter legally, which is quite ironic that you even made this thread since our "support" also doesn't matter.

Even if all the fat PS3 users were compensated for a feature that clearly wasn't useful for most of them in the first place, is too little for anybody to care. At the end of the day, the lawyers win a % of total compensation and us consumers get 5 bucks?

And for the record, your a fucking idiot for claiming MacDonald is bigger than Sony.
Sony is ~4x the size of mickey D in terms of total assets and revenue.

Really, could you cite that non-fact?

 

[Danpascooch]

Money. PS3's are only just being sold for a profit, the real money is in games and accessories. People that use Linux bought PS3's because they are amazingly powerful computers, so they buy the console and that's it. Sony loses money, so Sony doesn't care about them.

Robbing a bank would get me a lot of money too, but it's illegal

 

[Danpascooch]

The point seems to be that this might be a case of False Advertising.

At the moment (as I haven't bothered looking for a specific precedent) SONY appears to have done everything required of them through contract law and advertising law. So long as the EULA is determined to be legally binding they are fine.

I would say SONY doing this violates the spirit of the law if not the word of law. At this point their is no clear result and it will probably all depend on the judge in question.

Oh it's definitely not a case that is predetermined, this sort of corporate law can get so effing complicated, I wouldn't be surprised if this case takes a very long time.

But I would like to point out that EULA's barely ever have relevance in court for two reasons:

1.) You see the EULA AFTER you buy the console, so it's too late to make a decision not to get it after you see the EULA.

2.) If Sony didn't break the law here, than they don't need the EULA, if they did break the law, than that overrides the EULA, a contract cannot violate the law, so either way, the result is not going to change based on the EULA, so it's irrelevant.

 

[Danpascooch]

I'm sure I forgot: "the guy who will insult people, but thinks he is smart enough to do it so people don't noticie - and takes his continued lack of a ban as proof of his remarkable wit".

I should put this in my bio

 

[Danpascooch]

-The guy with a degree in internet searches, who finds one example where there might semantically be a weakness with the argument - which therefore proves the entire thing, and everything else in the entire world, is proven wrong.

I worked hard for that degree.

Damn straight, frankly, if anyone has the potential to beat my argument to death with a shovel, it's you.

 

[Danpascooch]

Duh. Did it take an entirely new post from me with a different analogy that didn't involve something other than your computer for you to realise that. At the rate Sony are going, yes you will essentially going to have just a box and string.

A string? I thought we'd just have a box.

 

[Danpascooch]

To be honest, I don't like the idea of companies being able to advertise a feature and then taking it away.

But by all accounts I've found seem to say that the Other OS function really sucked. I can't imagine that anyone really relied on it enough to want to sue over.

If it was like you said only really about making sure not to set a precedent on this sort of thing, I'd be all behind it. But when it comes to 4 seperate lawsuits, I'm certain at least one of those people is just out for a bit of cash.

So yeah, I guess I agree with you in theory.

Of course, no doubt in my mind a good number of these people are money grabbers, but it doesn't make the result of the case any less important.

 

[Danpascooch]

if Sony wins, then it is legal for companies to strip features you may actually care about in the future.

It depends how justified removing a particular feature is. What Sony did was probably the only feasible way to increase the security on the console, and i trust them enough not to go beserk claiming that removing the game playing feature increases security too.
For that matter i'm not entirely bothered about half the features my PS3 has, as long as it plays games and dvds ;D

I can't imagine any other companies i'd see in the same situation, but if they catch on and remove something worth the effort THEN i'll make a fuss.

This^^^^

What are you trying to prove OP? And yes, I read your little rendition. A majority of people either couldn't give a stuff or wouldn't use the "Other OS" feature or a lot of features for that matter. But that doesn't justify it. Why? Because people like yourself are trying to stop a precedent from happening.

It is down to interpretation. What do you want to be able to use from your device? Gaming Machine, Blu Ray Player/Media Centre or a cheaper option for a minority userbase of an OS that is commonly misrepresented or all of the above? YOU would expect anyone to be able use all these features, as you are entitled as a consumer.

What I don't understand from the twelve odd pages of this debate is, what are you doing to help this cause? Really? Are you going to screen grab all this and send it off to the guy in court? Email it off to Sony and tell them what you THINK? Im going with you wanted some insight to other people's understanding, but didn't like what they had to say. Or is it the legal understanding?

If sony wins, cause a ruccus by removing other features or other companies take on the precedent of the win (getting away with removing features as supported by a EULA) maybe then people might DO SOMETHING about missing features and maybe a class action lawsuit will arise. If you are trying to do so by coming here and stirring up some flames, what is the point? to prove you are right and other's are wrong?

I don't feel as if it is a necessary requirement for people to act up over something they have no control over. Say what you will. Setting a precedent will not stop a consumer from flooding the legal system with their overly opinionated views.

I believe I am only entitled to that which a company promises me when I pay for a device.

To answer your other question, I'm doing nothing to help, because there isn't anything I can actually do. It's not like I'm enough of an idiot to think if I send Sony an internet petition with a few hundred signatures that that will change anything (if any of you think it would influence Sony's decision, then I'm sorry I just called you an idiot......but you kind of are)

I am simply using these forums for their intended purpose, to have a discussion on something I think is important, and raise awareness of an issue I've noticed. Please don't go Omega on me and tell me "You chose THIS issue, out of all issues blah blah blah *crying a river*" because it's really nobody's business why I chose a particular issue to discuss.

EDIT: Crap, that reply sounded pretty hostile, I didn't mean it that way, sorry.

 

[Danpascooch]

hehe..

I think we have it all in this thread.
-The guy who sees a consumer vs. corporate battle over any detail, and where curtailing business-practices of any kind is evil, anti-market socialism.
-The dude who valiantly proclaims not to be emotionally involved, and keeps spending time denouncing everyone else's arguments as emotional drivel: only his argument is cold, bare, logic. Meanwhile, admitting personal interest - of any kind, no matter how legitimate, is an admittance of defeat.
-The guy who can't read, which proves he is right.
-The guy with a degree in internet searches, who finds one example where there might semantically be a weakness with the argument - which therefore proves the entire thing, and everything else in the entire world, is proven wrong.
-The guy who thinks the corporations love us, and wants to do things for us since we pay for a service.
-The guy who says: more power to the companies, even though I don't actually own stock!
-The guy who is personally insulted that it's even possible to draw up a reasonable argument that disagrees with his opinion.
-The guy who thinks that because his opinion is unaffected by reason, this means his opinion is a valid counter-example to any argument.

I'm sure I forgot: "the guy who will insult people, but thinks he is smart enough to do it so people don't noticie - and takes his continued lack of a ban as proof of his remarkable wit".

Which one am I?

You are something, something that is amazing!

 

[mysterj]

Unfortunate choice there, I don't have a car and I am a mechanic ...

Not the same thing though is it? Or are you going for a hyperbole? I can't tell.

Completely ignoring my analogy and responding to it saying 'oh yeah it doesn't apply to me because I don't have a car is pretty thick. Okay lets take it this way:

Take my analogy, and remove car with computer, replace bolt with key on keyboard, replace mechanic with idiot at computer shop.

Does you keyboard work now that the idiot has taken all the keys off your keyboard and don't come back saying 'Oh I fix it myself so I don't have my keys nicked by the clown at the shop' because then you are just being stupid and refusing to see other peoples points. Don't make me start resorting to sexual analogies about both your balls being taken by the doctor.

I never responded the way you want 'cos it only makes some sense. The PS3 still works, what your implying is after so many years all I am going to have left is a shiny case and a controller.

Exactly, the thread is about discussion, which is why you originally asserting that I chose something unworthy of the time spent on it ("You chose Linux -.-") is so unbelievably idiotic.

And I'll agree to disagree when you shut up and let my thread return to a semblance of logical discussion. I feel obligated to respond to what people say in my thread, but now that you have "agreed to disagree" you have no reason to be here, so why are you still here?

I like how you've been off topic for the last 30 posts, and as soon as I strike a nerve, you ask me how it pertains to the topic.

I never said I am pursuing (not perusing) nothing, I am trying to inform people of the importance of this case.

The first paragraph is taken out of context, so kindly put it back in.

The second one makes out that you have said "I will agree to disagree" before which you haven't.

The third one are you serious? All my posts have always been on topic, besides the ones were I am trying to stop people flaming me. Atleast 3 of yours have been nothing but insults.

One of my nerves hasn't even been touched in years, I am going to bed now, so your rid of me.

Sony have every right to remove what they want from there product, let them get on with it and lets stop trying to take money.

You know, taking something out of context only makes a difference when it means something different in context. I could throw that back into the paragraph if you want, but it's still the exact same assertion

Yes I can? I don't know why you would be bothered by such minute detail which you clearly didn't do ANY research on, that you ignored my actual intention of the post.

For Sony http: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Sony
MacDonald http: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/McDonald%27s_%28MCD%29/Data

But you probably don't want to read that, total revenue ~23 billion USD for MD, ~80 billion USD for Sony. Data provided for fiscal year 2009.
Edit: Changed data for more updated 2009 data, which isn't all that much difference from my 2008 data really.

While on topic is very disappointing to see you trying justify the removal of a feature nobody actually use, if you want precedent why isn't this something that actually concerns gamers, like the removal of original Xbox live or EA pulling online service, it just seems silly really considering that at best your getting a settlement, which doesn't set precedent nor will it affect any future decision.

 

[Danpascooch]

A lot of debate has been going back and forth about how much advance notice Sony gave consumers. This is LEGALLY IRRELEVANT. If removing the Linux was legal, advance notice does not make it illegal. And if removing Linux was Illegal, advance notice does not make it legal, so don't waste your time arguing about how much notice Sony gave consumers, because it has no legal relevance.

But this fact combined with the fact that the update WASN'T MANDATORY and gave you the option to CANCEL the update makes Other OS support still technically a feature.

But if you don't remove the OS you lose the ability to play any PS3 games made from now on (bluray too)

so no matter what choice you make you still lose at LEAST one advertised feature.

 

[Danpascooch]

Unfortunate choice there, I don't have a car and I am a mechanic ...

Not the same thing though is it? Or are you going for a hyperbole? I can't tell.

Completely ignoring my analogy and responding to it saying 'oh yeah it doesn't apply to me because I don't have a car is pretty thick. Okay lets take it this way:

Take my analogy, and remove car with computer, replace bolt with key on keyboard, replace mechanic with idiot at computer shop.

Does you keyboard work now that the idiot has taken all the keys off your keyboard and don't come back saying 'Oh I fix it myself so I don't have my keys nicked by the clown at the shop' because then you are just being stupid and refusing to see other peoples points. Don't make me start resorting to sexual analogies about both your balls being taken by the doctor.

I never responded the way you want 'cos it only makes some sense. The PS3 still works, what your implying is after so many years all I am going to have left is a shiny case and a controller.

Exactly, the thread is about discussion, which is why you originally asserting that I chose something unworthy of the time spent on it ("You chose Linux -.-") is so unbelievably idiotic.

And I'll agree to disagree when you shut up and let my thread return to a semblance of logical discussion. I feel obligated to respond to what people say in my thread, but now that you have "agreed to disagree" you have no reason to be here, so why are you still here?

I like how you've been off topic for the last 30 posts, and as soon as I strike a nerve, you ask me how it pertains to the topic.

I never said I am pursuing (not perusing) nothing, I am trying to inform people of the importance of this case.

The first paragraph is taken out of context, so kindly put it back in.

The second one makes out that you have said "I will agree to disagree" before which you haven't.

The third one are you serious? All my posts have always been on topic, besides the ones were I am trying to stop people flaming me. Atleast 3 of yours have been nothing but insults.

One of my nerves hasn't even been touched in years, I am going to bed now, so your rid of me.

Sony have every right to remove what they want from there product, let them get on with it and lets stop trying to take money.

You know, taking something out of context only makes a difference when it means something different in context. I could throw that back into the paragraph if you want, but it's still the exact same assertion

Yes I can? I don't know why you would be bothered by such minute detail which you clearly didn't do ANY research on, that you ignored my actual intention of the post.

For Sony http: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/08q4_sony.pdf
MacDonald http: //www.wikinvest.com/stock/McDonald%27s_%28MCD%29/Data

But you probably don't want to read that, total revenue ~23 billion USD for MD, ~78 billion USD for Sony. Data provided for fiscal year 2008.

While on topic is very disappointing to see you trying justify the removal of a feature nobody actually use, if you want precedent why isn't this something that actually concerns gamers, like the removal of original Xbox live or EA pulling online service, it just seems silly really considering that at best your getting a settlement, which doesn't set precedent nor will it affect any future decision.

Mcdonald's Assets: Total Assets 29.8B (29,800,000,000 USD) (29.8 billion USD)

Sony's Assets: Total Assets 122,587M (YEN!!!) (1,358,304,699 USD) (1.36 billion USD)

Your own citation just proved that Mcdonald's kicks Sony's ass, seriously, did you really expect that Sony had more assets than Mcdonald's? Do you have ANY idea how big of a company Mcdonald's is?

You claim I have no evidence on posting something that's common knowledge (Mcdonald's > Sony) yet then you claim that "nobody uses the Linux feature" which not only is not backed up by evidence, but is just bare bones wrong

Lastly, if you consider a detail minute enough that I shouldn't care about it, then DON'T POST IT.

 

[mysterj]

If all you ever talk about are legal bullshit and legal bullshit then why should anyone care, doesn't seem to concern many people except for lawyers apparently.

This thread doesn't talk about "Why I should support the 'other OS' lawsuit", it talks about how our opinions doesn't matter since they don't matter legally, which is quite ironic that you even made this thread since our "support" also doesn't matter.

Even if all the fat PS3 users were compensated for a feature that clearly wasn't useful for most of them in the first place, is too little for anybody to care. At the end of the day, the lawyers win a % of total compensation and us consumers get 5 bucks?

And for the record, your a fucking idiot for claiming MacDonald is bigger than Sony.
Sony is ~4x the size of mickey D in terms of total assets and revenue.

Really, could you cite that non-fact?

Yes I can? I don't know why you would be bothered by such minute detail which you clearly didn't do ANY research on, that you ignored my actual intention of the post.

For Sony http: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Sony
MacDonald http: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/McDonald%27s_%28MCD%29/Data

But you probably don't want to read that, total revenue ~23 billion USD for MD, ~80 billion USD for Sony. Data provided for fiscal year 2009.
Edit: Changed data for more updated 2009 data, which isn't all that much difference from my 2008 data really.

While on topic is very disappointing to see you trying justify the removal of a feature nobody actually use, if you want precedent why isn't this something that actually concerns gamers, like the removal of original Xbox live or EA pulling online service, it just seems silly really considering that at best your getting a settlement, which doesn't set precedent nor will it affect any future decision.

 

[Danpascooch]

If all you ever talk about are legal bullshit and legal bullshit then why should anyone care, doesn't seem to concern many people except for lawyers apparently.

This thread doesn't talk about "Why I should support the 'other OS' lawsuit", it talks about how our opinions doesn't matter since they don't matter legally, which is quite ironic that you even made this thread since our "support" also doesn't matter.

Even if all the fat PS3 users were compensated for a feature that clearly wasn't useful for most of them in the first place, is too little for anybody to care. At the end of the day, the lawyers win a % of total compensation and us consumers get 5 bucks?

And for the record, your a fucking idiot for claiming MacDonald is bigger than Sony.
Sony is ~4x the size of mickey D in terms of total assets and revenue.

Really, could you cite that non-fact?

Yes I can? I don't know why you would be bothered by such minute detail which you clearly didn't do ANY research on, that you ignored my actual intention of the post.

For Sony http: http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Sony
MacDonald http: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/McDonald%27s_%28MCD%29/Data

But you probably don't want to read that, total revenue ~23 billion USD for MD, ~80 billion USD for Sony. Data provided for fiscal year 2009.
Edit: Changed data for more updated 2009 data, which isn't all that much difference from my 2008 data really.

While on topic is very disappointing to see you trying justify the removal of a feature nobody actually use, if you want precedent why isn't this something that actually concerns gamers, like the removal of original Xbox live or EA pulling online service, it just seems silly really considering that at best your getting a settlement, which doesn't set precedent nor will it affect any future decision.

You just reposted your original argument after my reply, now I'm going to have to repost my reply too so people don't get too confused, ugh.

Mcdonald's Assets: Total Assets 29.8B (29,800,000,000 USD) (29.8 billion USD)

Sony's Assets: Total Assets 122,587M (YEN!!!) (1,358,304,699 USD) (1.36 billion USD)

Your own citation just proved that Mcdonald's kicks Sony's ass, seriously, did you really expect that Sony had more assets than Mcdonald's? Do you have ANY idea how big of a company Mcdonald's is?

You claim I have no evidence on posting something that's common knowledge (Mcdonald's > Sony) yet then you claim that "nobody uses the Linux feature" which not only is not backed up by evidence, but is just bare bones wrong.

Lastly, if you consider a detail minute enough that I shouldn't care about it, then DON'T POST IT.

 

[mysterj]

Apparently there was a bug or something which made me quote wrong post, but I guess u didn't really my initial citation anyways seeing how you believed any company that only has 1 billion total asset can actually make expensive console investment that tend to lose money on its initial cycle.

Not going to blame you on misreading the Sony report though, since it is really hard to digest.

 

[mysterj]

I said most people don't use Linux, I have no data to support it but is safe to assume 95% of people who bought a fat ps3 don't use linux, even counting the ones using it for research.

Edit: you also didn't read the updated source which is more reader friendly, it clearly read 7.7 trillion yen revenue for 2009.

 

[Danpascooch]

Apparently there was a bug or something which made me quote wrong post, but I guess u didn't really my initial citation anyways seeing how you believed any company that only has 1 billion total asset can actually make expensive console investment that tend to lose money on its initial cycle.

Not going to blame you on misreading the Sony report though, since it is really hard to digest.

Ok, show me where on the form it ACTUALLY lists their total investments, because I definitely didn't read that incorrectly.

Remember that a company can easily have much more than 1 billion in physical and monetary property, yet still only have 1 billion in assets because of outstanding debts and obligations that are deducted.

 

[Danpascooch]

I said most people don't use Linux, I have no data to support it but is safe to assume 95% of people who bought a fat ps3 don't use linux, even counting the ones using it for research.

5% of millions of people is a lot. Not to mention, it's the legal precedent that matters