Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Danpascooch]

[HEADING=2]500th REPLY!!![/HEADING]
Had to be done

 

[omega 616]

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

It's not the exact same assertion though, is it? The way you have quoted me makes me out to look like I am a total tool and opposed to consumer rights. When in fact I just think you picked the wrong thing to campaign about.

Can we stop this now? Your doing nothing but trying to highlight semantic errors.

 

[Danpascooch]

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

It's not the exact same assertion though, is it? The way you have quoted me makes me out to look like I am a total tool and opposed to consumer rights. When in fact I just think you picked the wrong thing to campaign about.

Can we stop this now? Your doing nothing but trying to highlight semantic errors.

It was stopped when I last quoted you about 3 hours ago, good job starting it back up.

And yes, it is the exact same assertion, if the way I quoted you makes you look like a total tool, that's because what you said makes you look like a total tool. Sorry, them's the brakes.

 

[Danpascooch]

That's not true, if you update the firmware, you can no longer use that Linux partition:

For those PS3 users who are currently using the ?Other OS? feature but choose to install the system software update, to avoid data loss they first need to back-up any data stored within the hard drive partition used by the ?Other OS,? as they will not be able to access that data following the update.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/03/28/ps3-firmware-v3-21-update/

Sorry, but you're just wrong

Yeah you're right, my apologies, that had been my impression going into the update from several of the discussions on the Sony's forums. That's a bit more annoying than I'd originally thought. Hopefully they'll at least find a way to make the scientific community and any other major contracts able to continue to utilize these features.

It's a complicated and convoluted issue, I certainly can't fault you for not knowing it, for something so many people are riled up about, digging up information on the subject is surprisingly difficult.

 

[omega 616]

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

It's not the exact same assertion though, is it? The way you have quoted me makes me out to look like I am a total tool and opposed to consumer rights. When in fact I just think you picked the wrong thing to campaign about.

Can we stop this now? Your doing nothing but trying to highlight semantic errors.

It was stopped when I last quoted you about 3 hours ago, good job starting it back up.

And yes, it is the exact same assertion, if the way I quoted you makes you look like a total tool, that's because what you said makes you look like a total tool. Sorry, them's the brakes.

Exactly you quoted me, you started this up again. You begged and pleaded for me to leave then you quote me, your making yourself look stupid.

You have derailed your own thread, I have seen a good number of people you have quoted and put nothing but a one liner, off topic insult on your own thread.

If you have no fact or counter argument why are you quoting people? Seriously, it looks like your out for some mod attention.

 

[Danpascooch]

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

It's not the exact same assertion though, is it? The way you have quoted me makes me out to look like I am a total tool and opposed to consumer rights. When in fact I just think you picked the wrong thing to campaign about.

Can we stop this now? Your doing nothing but trying to highlight semantic errors.

It was stopped when I last quoted you about 3 hours ago, good job starting it back up.

And yes, it is the exact same assertion, if the way I quoted you makes you look like a total tool, that's because what you said makes you look like a total tool. Sorry, them's the brakes.

Exactly you quoted me, you started this up again. You begged and pleaded for me to leave then you quote me, your making yourself look stupid.

You have derailed your own thread, I have seen a good number of people you have quoted and put nothing but a one liner, off topic insult on your own thread.

If you have no fact or counter argument why are you quoting people? Seriously, it looks like your out for some mod attention.

This is my thread, if people post here, I will reply to them, that is a fact.

If you want it to stop, don't make any more posts here, and I will have nothing to quote, but for each post you make, I will have one reply to that post. I don't quote something twice, so you can make it stop simply by not posting anymore, but I will not stop quoting and replying to each post you make.

Saying I derailed my own thread does not make it true, I have had a number of spirited debates with a number of well informed and intelligent people, since Spartan left, you are the only person in this thread with nothing to contribute, so I suggest you just leave, and delete the any quote notifications for posts of yours I have not replied to yet.

For each post you make, I will reply, if it's going to stop, it needs to stop on your end by not posting anymore, because I will not stop replying to people in my own thread.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Does the fact that people were using it to hack the thing matter?

I support them taking it off over having hackers.

It's also possible they took it off, and plan to re-release it when they fix the hacking thing.

I haven't researched the topic much, as I didn't use other OS, but there's my two cents.

I can sympathize with people thinking it's justified, but whether it's legal is what I am concerned with.

I don't think it's justified either. They should either pay up or give the advertised feature back.

My only concern is if Sony crashes, will Microsoft monopolize the console market, and make an even worse console that costs more?

 

[Danpascooch]

Does the fact that people were using it to hack the thing matter?

I support them taking it off over having hackers.

It's also possible they took it off, and plan to re-release it when they fix the hacking thing.

I haven't researched the topic much, as I didn't use other OS, but there's my two cents.

I can sympathize with people thinking it's justified, but whether it's legal is what I am concerned with.

I don't think it's justified either. They should either pay up or give the advertised feature back.

My only concern is if Sony crashes, will Microsoft monopolize the console market, and make an even worse console that costs more?

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think it's justified either, but all I am saying is that I am not going to attack people for that opinion, I stick to what I can reasonably prove.

 

[Seldon2639]

A) Look, I don't mean to be a jerk here, but you HAVE to be fucking kidding me. Yes it can't use them simultaneously, but it was advertised to have BOTH of the features:

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., PS3 Open Platform, 2006-2010:
"In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3? system to run the Linux operating system. By installing the Linux operating system, you can use the PS3? system not only as an entry-level personal computer with hundreds of familiar applications for home and office use, but also as a complete development environment for the Cell Broadband Engine? (Cell/B.E.)."

Funny, I see the words IN ADDITION not, Either/Or

The fact that you can infer a certain meaning to the words does not obligate Sony to offer you what you think you should have. That's simply ludicrous. It still does have both features. You can use Linux, or you can access PSN and continue to play newly released games. If you'd like to boot to Linux, and use it for only those functions, you can. That's all the advertisement offers. The fact that you can no longer use both features only indicates that you must pick a path for your machine, not that they have removed the ability to utilize both functions out of the box.

B) It had the feature to play all PS3 games, which is an advertised feature of the device, and the ability to use Linux, which is an advertised feature of the device, it does not have both of the features advertised, so it is false advertising, I understand WHY that is, but the simple fact is it doesn't have what it is advertised to have.

It does have both features. You can play games (and not have Linux) or have Linux (but not play games). The fact that you cannot utilize both features within the same framework does not mean it lacks both functions. If I buy an item that can be either a tree fort or a garage, it doesn't mean that I have to be able to use it as both. I get to pick which one I want, and make use of it. The fact that SEA until now has allowed you to switch back and forth does not inherit you that as a right.

C) You CANNOT use both features, I again ask you to look at the excerpt under point A, A product must be able to do the things it is advertised as being able to do, not either/or.

My father is a lawyer, I have taken a number of law classes and have done independent research, I know quite a bit about the law, and it's intricacies.

Let's not get into a "who knows more about the law" pissing contest. We'll both look foolish. I will, however, ask you to back up your claims with actual case law, as you have purported some expertise with the law.

Your statement that a product does not have to include all of the features that it says it includes together is as stupid as it is wrong (Yes, that is incredibly rude to say, and I apologize, but frankly it's what I mean) When something is advertised to have two features, it is required to have BOTH of them. I don't know how to counter your point here, because it is so absurd that nobody has ever bothered to prove otherwise.

You twist my words, and call it good. Don't put sugar on your bullshit and call it candy. It does have both features, you miss that point either out of intention to mislead and falsify or out of ignorance, but you miss it nonetheless. You can still use Linux on all machines made prior to the firmware update, and use it in exactly the way Linux could be used previously (as far as I have read). What you can no longer do is use the system for both purposes. If you refuse the firmware update, you are locked into Linux, and nothing else. If you use the firmware update, you are locked out of Linux. But, given that you can still choose either, the system still has both features.

Let me give you an example you might comprehend: if a sculpture making kit advertises that "in addition to the usual frog, and princess, you can make it into a miniature car", but it only comes with the materials to make one of those things, would you claim it as false advertising? If you would, I encourage you to ask your esteemed attorney father how much water that would carry in court.

I don't know what law practices you think you're referring too, but it sure as hell isn't US law.

EDIT: BTW, in the OP, I cited some legal code, take a look. I don't need a lawyer to post a thread like this, I did my research.

You cited regulatory code from the FTC. That, as I have mentioned, is not in any way reflective of the standards for civil litigation. If you don't understand the difference, I apologize if this seems strained. But, I will reiterate for the benefits of those without your vaunted legal expertise: OP has cited no legal authority of bearing on the cases in question.

If you'd like to check actual case law for charges of breach of contract in an advertisement sense, or promissory estoppel, or breach of implied covenant of good faith, here's some:

"In determining whether a failure to render or to offer performance is material, the following circumstances are significant: (a) the extent to which the injured party will be deprived of the benefit which he reasonably expected; (b) the extent to which the injured party can be adequately compensated for the part of that benefit of which he will be deprived; (c) the extent to which the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will suffer forfeiture; (d) the likelihood that the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will cure his failure, taking account of all the circumstances including any reasonable assurances; (e) the extent to which the behavior of the party failing to perform or to offer to perform comports with standards of good faith and fair dealing."

American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241 (1981)

Show that there is a reasonable belief that they would have access to both the Linux OS and the Additional Features for the life of the product. Can't? That's because it's not reasonable. No material breach has occurred

For breach of implied covenant of good faith, see A.C. Shaw Construction v. Washoe County, 105 Nev. 913, 915, 784 P.2d 9, 10 (1989). The fact pattern is sufficiently different as to make such claims irrelevant. There was no breach, and no violation of fair dealing. The consumer received the worth of their payment.

As mentioned earlier, the Unjust Enrichment claim is wholly off the mark. "Unjust enrichment is enrichment that lacks an adequate legal basis: it results from a transfer that the law treats as ineffective to work a conclusive alteration in ownership rights." Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, §1, comment b (Discussion Draft 2000). It is invoked when work has gone uncompleted, but some material benefit has been proffered to a party. That party must pay the fair market value of the work received. In this case, given that the consumers received the product, they have gotten the fair market worth of their $500. Even if we assume some liability to Sony, it would be nonexistent due to the fact that the consumers (essentially) already got their money's worth.

This is a nuisance suit, stop trumping it up

 

[Tarmon'gaidin]

Oh I'm sorry I meant the whole Sony is evil part, good luck shoving.

 

[Fragarach]

I didn't read all 15 pages of the thread, so forgive me, but I'm looking at my PS3 box (60GB, 1st gen, from June '07) and it mentions nothing about an Other OS feature. Which model's box did feature the "other OS"?

 

[shadow skill]

I didn't read all 15 pages of the thread, so forgive me, but I'm looking at my PS3 box (60GB, 1st gen, from June '07) and it mentions nothing about an Other OS feature. Which model's box did feature the "other OS"?

Look in the manual.

 

[Fragarach]

I know it's in the manual, but you don't even see the manual until you've purchased the machine. (Not always the case I know, but still)

 

[oktalist]

As for playing newer games, Sony never falsely advertised Killzone 3 with Linux at same time

Yes they did. When they effectively said the PS3 will be able to dual boot OS and play any PS3 game (notwithstanding games that require third party hardware). Killzone 3 is a PS3 game (I presume). Therefore they did advertise that the PS3 could play Killzone 3 and run Linux (although obviously not simultaneously). They advertised this years before Killzone 3 had even been conceived as a game idea.

 

[oktalist]

I said most people don't use Linux

Technically that's not true. Sure, most people don't use Linux on their PS3, but most people do use Linux every time they access a website. It's not some hobbyists' toy. I realise that's not what you meant, but I just wanted to make that point.

 

[shadow skill]

As for playing newer games, Sony never falsely advertised Killzone 3 with Linux at same time

Yes they did. When they effectively said the PS3 will be able to dual boot OS and play any PS3 game (notwithstanding games that require third party hardware). Killzone 3 is a PS3 game (I presume). Therefore they did advertise that the PS3 could play Killzone 3 and run Linux (although obviously not simultaneously). They advertised this years before Killzone 3 had even been conceived as a game idea.

That is a bit of a stretch if there ever was one. The most important point aside from the legality or lack thereof, of Sony's action is the truthfulness of the idea that this update was for security reasons. Geohot's Hypervisor exploit cannot be done remotely and therefore posses absolutely no threat to Sony's customers. The Hypervisor exploit does not even guarantee that there will be any piracy of PS3 and games and therefore there is no guarantee that Sony will be injured in any material way by the exploit. There is the fact that previous Hypervisor exploits have been patched without removing the ability to dual boot.

If the idea that this action occurred for security reasons is accepted, how does one argue against the idea that Microsoft or any other company should be able to release updates that render products unfit for the purpose they were purchased for; because those products are no longer maintained, and can have all kinds of (very real) security issues? What is to stop businesses from using this logic as a scheme by which to pressure customers to buy new products?

 

[oktalist]

Does yanking the other OS option even resolve the issue that it was ostensibly intended to resolve? Whatever that was, anyway; I've seen the whole gamut here from piracy to identity fraud.

 

[shadow skill]

Does yanking the other OS option even resolve the issue that it was ostensibly intended to resolve? Whatever that was, anyway; I've seen the whole gamut here from piracy to identity fraud.

Not really, the people who don't update can still perform the exploit. People are working on custom firmware as we speak. So no Sony's "optional" update doesn't even protect them from any potential piracy.