Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Danpascooch]

I already explained this to you, and now I see oktalist has also, if you aren't satisfied with our explanations, bring something new to the table, tell us WHY what we said isn't true and why there is no difference between original xbox live and a static one time pay feature that requires no upkeep.

But if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again despite us explaining it repeatedly, than you are spamming, and I have no patience for that.

Your repetition that you have "explain[ed] it" lacks credulity. Where I have strained and put effort into coming up with new arguments, and new support in statute and precedent which provides the foundation to my argument, you have simply repeated the same thing.

Allow me to summarize your argument:

"They said you could use the other OS, and now they're taking it away. That makes it false advertising."

Even were you a judge, you would be under some requirement to justify that in statute and substance, but you have done neither. You've cited an irrelevant regulatory agency, but no body of applicable law which provides any basis for your conclusions. If you have added something more of substance, I have not seen it. Perhaps an edit slipped my notice.

I have responded to every element of your argument, whereas you conveniently ignore elements of mine and claim to have already responded. I will specify, for your benefit.

1. Realizing (as an astute legal mind must) that there is no charge in civil court for 'false advertising' in and of itself, under what case law or statute do the advertisements in question create a contractual obligation to indefinitely provide access either to new releases, or Linux, or the Playstation Network?
2. Given that there are multiple possible interpretations of the advertisement's meaning, how do you aim to show that the only reasonable interpretation is the one you have offered?
3. Given the easy access to the EULA online, how will you show that the contract (if any) did not specifically include the provisions of the EULA therein?
4. Given the fact that the consumers in question received compensation for their monetary contribution, the market value of which was (arguably) entirely sufficient, what damages would you aim to prove, and how would you show them? Bearing in mind, please, that the only real damages here would be any difference between the value of the PS3 (even without Linux capability) and the price the consumer paid, as measured by a fair market value.
5. If you seek injunctive relief, how to you intend to show that SEA has wrongly failed to live up to its end of any agreement, and would thus be estopped from changing it?
6. How will you show that the contract in question was not fulfilled with the proffer of the PS3 itself, independent of any capabilities beyond that, which it will be argued are entirely discretionary on the party of SEA? To wit: how will you show that the PS3 in and of itself isn't worth $500, and that everything else SEA offered was above and beyond the price they charged, which would be full mitigation of damages?

But, I assume you have no interest in actual discourse, and rather only want a series of people trumpeting your own one-sided, biased, and substantially inaccurate interpretation. As I said, though, the truth will out. If this goes to trial (which I highly doubt, given that it is at most a nuisance suit), I will be very surprised if your legal expertise were called upon to elucidate the issues at hand.

And, as always, your post [needs citations]

1.) I told you I'm not going to address this "indefinitely" thing, when a console is advertised to have a feature and not a service, it is assumed by any reasonable person to be there indefinitely, if the ad caused a reasonable person to assume something that wasn't true, that is deceptive advertising under the FTC (There is cited legal code somewhere earlier in this thread that someone posted, you want it, you can do the work of digging it out)
2.) Because every single freaking person on the internet interpreted it as having it indefinitely and only you interpreted it as having some hidden "time till taken away" feature in it, either everybody out there isn't reasonable, or you aren't reasonable, my guess is everyone out there aren't ALL unreasonable people
3.) Because you can't agree to the EULA until getting the console, and like I said before (you hate me repeating myself, but then you ignore what I say, so I have to) EULA's rarely hold up in court because they don't change the results of the law, either you broke the law or you didn't, in either case the EULA won't change one of those results into the other, so it's irrelevant (where did you see the PS3 EULA online in an official Sony website?). Not to mention, you don't have to agree to the EULA at ALL as long as you don't want to use PSN, and then you'd STILL have to make this stupid choice between new release games and Linux (Don't ignore that last point, it's important, and I expect you to address it in your next reply)

Not to mention that the EULA is something you HAVE to agree to use the console, it's a contract they strong arm you into AFTER you paid the cash, that's why they never hold water in court.

Given the fact that the consumers in question received compensation for their monetary contribution, the market value of which was (arguably) entirely sufficient

5.) Given that fact that ISN'T TRUE, yeah, that would be fine, and there would be no lawsuit, but back to reality now, it isn't true, and that's the whole point of the damn case. ONE guy got a partial refund, and it was from Amazon, not Sony.

6.)

To wit: how will you show that the PS3 in and of itself isn't worth $500, and that everything else SEA offered was above and beyond the price they charged, which would be full mitigation of damages?

It's not about how much each feature's worth, it's about whether they advertised something that isn't true, this argument of yours isn't relevant. Next are you going to ask me how do I intent to prove that they ride ponies to work every day?

 

[Danpascooch]

Ah. Once we've exhausted any semblance of actual discourse, we fall to the logical fallacies. Shall I enumerate them?

1. Appeal to the majority
2. Ad hominem
3. Bandwagoning
4. Begging the Question
5. Biased Sample

Hell, those are only the ones that come readily to mind. But, I believe this is one of the cases where truth will out, so if you have no more interest in a civil discussion, I'm more than happy to let this drop.

When someone gives a list of features the device has to have all of them, the PS3 does not have all of them, you either get a PS3 with no Linux, or a PS3 with no PSN or new game capabilities, so you do NOT get every feature on the list, that is false advertising, this isn't a videogame, branching exclusionary paths are not a benefit, they are illegal advertising. Advertisements promise me a PS3 that can use Linux and utilize PSN and all PS3 games, the simple fact is I don't have a PS3 that can use Linux and utilize PSN and all PS3 games, a LIST OF FEATURES mean "THESE FEATURES ARE INCLUDED" and these PS3's do NOT include all of them, they include some of them, and you get to choose. That is false advertising.

Repetition does not change reality, I promise. No matter how many times I repeat that I'm surrounded by naked cheerleaders, I cannot alter the very fabric of space-time to make it true. Similarly, you cannot make something false advertising merely by repeating that it is. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so put up some case law which supports your conclusions (as I have for mine) or cease to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, as you lack the foundation to do so.

I also notice you didn't mention that quote I pulled where they used the words "in addition" instead of "either or"

I wonder if you read the posts you respond to, or just kind of skim. I responded to that directly, browse up a bit.

I only quoted the arguments that have some merit to them, and not the other drivel, let's get to it shall we?

where shall we start? Ooo, how about THIS list:

1. Appeal to the majority
2. Ad hominem
3. Bandwagoning
4. Begging the Question
5. Biased Sample

1.) "Appeal to the majority"

How is this a "logical fallacy"? Should I change my argument because the majority of people agree with me? This is how I feel, if you think I should change my argument in order to be WITH THE MINORITY, then you're an idiot, because I came to my decision through logic and research, not out of a desire to "rage against the majority" which WOULD be a logical fallacy.

2.) Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

Repetition does not change reality, I promise. No matter how many times I repeat that I'm surrounded by naked cheerleaders, I cannot alter the very fabric of space-time to make it true.

Sounds like Ad Hominem abusive to me! Care to continue accusing me of something you're committing yourself? I would be committing Ad Hominem if INSTEAD of arguing logically I corrected you on spelling or something. What I am doing is simultaneously using logic and reason and calling you an idiot.

3.) This is the same as number one, synonyms are fun!

4.) Begging the Question: "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."

First off, this is a thread, so none of it requires proof like in a courtroom, it requires evidence, and instead of just listing terms from a google search of "logical fallacies" I suggest you give me a specific example of where it was committed.

5.) This isn't a survey, it's a thread. Believe me, I took college level statistics, I know what a biased sample is, but instead of creating a random sample survey on this issue, I MADE A THREAD TO DISCUSS IT, because that's what this website is for. It's not as if I intent to use this data for anything, and I don't see how the people in my thread being biased pokes any holes in my argument.

Again, make sure something APPLIES before you accuse me of it.

Where to next? Oh, right here:

I wonder if you read the posts you respond to, or just kind of skim. I responded to that directly, browse up a bit.

Another classic case of "I know you're wrong here, but I'm not going to tell you how or why you're wrong"

How am I supposed to defend myself against that sort of "Ad Hominem Abusive" (see, I can throw around Latin phrases too). If you want to tell me I'm wrong, a good start would be telling me WHY or else we're going to get nowhere.

Alright, I think I'm done for now.

 

[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.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is a loop hole. It's not ethical. But no court of law I am aware of rules on ethics. Mostly because of how subjective they are.

It's not just unethical to remove advertised features, it's illegal.

That's what False Advertising is.

 

[Danpascooch]

I just have one question;

[HEADING=1]What. Advertising?[/HEADING]

Every single time I hear this argument it's always "Sony advertised it, therefore it's false advertising!"

I have never seen a single god-damn advertisement for the "Install other OS" feature, so please explain to me how that can be "false advertisement"? Show me one TV commercial or banner ad or computer ad that shows "Instal other OS feature!" or some variation of that and it would DRAMATICALLY clear up whateverthehell it is that's being argued.

As for the EULA agreement, you signed the thing stating you agreed what the terms of service was or whatever they were. It's not exactly "above the law" if there is no "false advertising" to begin with.

It's in my OP, if you want to argue here, I suggest you read it, I gave a link to a site that lists all of the advertisements and promises Sony made that would lead a customer to know that PS3 comes with Linux.

It's at the bottom of the OP in an edit (and don't say it wasn't there when you looked at it, I made that edit hours ago)

Hurk-a-dur, missed that link, apologies, thought it would just link to some legal mumbo-jumbo as a lot of posts regarding this issue do.

But even after I read the link I hardly think that that would really be considered "advertising". That's just a post on a blog, that means nothing. A blog post is not a binding contract. (unless I completely missed the link again, in which case sorry...again!)

It's like if a scientist said "we'll have this technology out in stores in a month!" on a scientific journal and the project gets canceled and people sue him. There's nothing that he can really do about it now can he?

But eh, obviously since I'm not affected by this at all I have no stake in it. But I really do have to wonder what uses Linux really had for the PS3 aside from the pirating.

There are plenty of examples in there, remember, advertising doesn't necessarily have to be flashy or expensive, basically, if it's formally promised by the company to the consumers that it will have said feature before they buy it, it counts.

That's all advertising really is, and there is no distinction based on how flashy, expensive, or successful it was.

 

[Seldon2639]

1.) I told you I'm not going to address this "indefinitely" thing, when a console is advertised to have a feature and not a service, it is assumed by any reasonable person to be there indefinitely, if the ad caused a reasonable person to assume something that wasn't true, that is deceptive advertising under the FTC (There is cited legal code somewhere earlier in this thread that someone posted, you want it, you can do the work of digging it out)

Perhaps some things do bear repetition: The Federal Trade Commission is a regulatory agency, and has no jurisdiction over a civil proceeding. There is no charge of "deceptive advertising" under civil law, nor are any claims being brought in these suits which are based on such charges. The claims being brought are focused on breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Stop falling back on "it's false advertising", because that's not at issue. What is at issue is whether a contract was formed, a promise made, or an agreement brokered, and whether it was violated.

2.) Because every single freaking person on the internet interpreted it as having it indefinitely and only you interpreted it as having some hidden "time till taken away" feature in it, either everybody out there isn't reasonable, or you aren't reasonable, my guess is everyone out there aren't ALL unreasonable people

Not unreasonable, necessarily, just not being truly honest. No one reasonably expects a console (nor any feature therein) to be permanent. Insofar as we buy a console to play the latest and greatest games, we also comprehend that eventually support for such system will be removed, and we will have to change systems to play newer games. Even this, though, is irrelevant, since even if we accept there is liability, the damages are almost (if not wholly) mitigated.

3.) Because you can't agree to the EULA until getting the console, and like I said before (you hate me repeating myself, but then you ignore what I say, so I have to) EULA's rarely hold up in court because they don't change the results of the law, either you broke the law or you didn't, in either case the EULA won't change one of those results into the other, so it's irrelevant (where did you see the PS3 EULA online in an official Sony website?). Not to mention, you don't have to agree to the EULA at ALL as long as you don't want to use PSN, and then you'd STILL have to make this stupid choice between new release games and Linux (Don't ignore that last point, it's important, and I expect you to address it in your next reply)

To the first part: I have addressed this. You are agreeing to the EULA at the point of purchase, and (given that one can gain knowledge of it with ease), it would be difficult to claim ignorance wholecloth of its provisions. But, that said, you seem to be missing that these charges sound in contract, which means that they are brought under the provisions of the contract as entered into. If you read the actual suits (and I would encourage that you do), they are claiming breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Since such claims rest on whether there was a contract, and what its provisions are, your focus on "did they break the law" is misplaced. There is no "law" in question here, only the contract's privsions.

Not to mention that the EULA is something you HAVE to agree to use the console, it's a contract they strong arm you into AFTER you paid the cash, that's why they never hold water in court.

Except for how you can (a) check the contract prior to purchase, and (b) refuse the EULA and return the console after purchase. The EULA may not hold water for some things, but in terms of the obligations from the company to consumer in terms of (among other things) breach of contract would be binding.

5.) Given that fact that ISN'T TRUE, yeah, that would be fine, and there would be no lawsuit, but back to reality now, it isn't true, and that's the whole point of the damn case. ONE guy got a partial refund, and it was from Amazon, not Sony.

You misunderstand. The compensation for their money was their Playstation. Even if you can prove liability (let's assume you can), you must next prove damages. In a contract claim (or any of these claims) there must be adverse reliance, and action must be taken to make the aggrieved party "whole". How do you show that they did not (essentially) get their money's worth? If they paid $500, and the PS3 (even without Linux) was worth $500, they have no damages, as they received just compensation for their monies.

It's not about how much each feature's worth, it's about whether they advertised something that isn't true, this argument of yours isn't relevant. Next are you going to ask me how do I intent to prove that they ride ponies to work every day?

You have it backwards, unfortunately. Given that these claims arise in contract law, and are brought in civil court (the FTC is a different kettle of fish), the question is first of liability, and second of damages. Did a contract exist based on the advertisement? Let's assume for the sake of argument it does. What were the provisions therein? Let's assume you're right, and there has been a breach of some substance insofar as Sony is removing the Linux capability.

What damages exist? Even if you can prove liability, you must prove some damages to be compensated. Where is the adverse reliance? Where is the detriment? Where is the economic or non-economic harm to the consumer? It's not enough to say "they lied" you must show that the lies harmed your client. Can you prove these consumers would have refused to buy a PS3 save for those features? Maybe. But unless you can show that, the only possible recompense would be the value of the lost capability, which you would have to prove.

These are not statutory damages, this is pure direct liability.

 

[Seldon2639]

I only quoted the arguments that have some merit to them, and not the other drivel, let's get to it shall we?

Ah, our arbiter of reason and logic has returned to us. But, I beg you to enlighten me as to the errors of my other arguments. Your overwhelming intellect and knowledge of the law and procedure make me want to glean as much as I can from you/

1.) "Appeal to the majority"

How is this a "logical fallacy"? Should I change my argument because the majority of people agree with me? This is how I feel, if you think I should change my argument in order to be WITH THE MINORITY, then you're an idiot, because I came to my decision through logic and research, not out of a desire to "rage against the majority" which WOULD be a logical fallacy.

You misunderstand. You specifically said that my argument is wrong because no one else has made such a claim here (elsewhere, I'll bet people have, given that the senior attorneys at my firm made similar conclusions to mine). You're claiming the validity of your argument based on the popularity of it, that's the fallacy. But, the fact of the matter is that you have provided neither research (aside from cursory "these advertisements seem to say this, therefore they're lying" type), nor logic in the classical sense, much less legal reference to support your opinion. Please do not claim otherwise.

2.) Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

Indeed. I'm glad both of us can use wikipedia (though, if you could check out the actual claims from the suits, and google those, it might brighten the issue for you). But, if you cannot see how your posts have engaged in this, I apologize for the confusiion.

Sounds like Ad Hominem abusive to me! Care to continue accusing me of something you're committing yourself? I would be committing Ad Hominem if INSTEAD of arguing logically I corrected you on spelling or something. What I am doing is simultaneously using logic and reason and calling you an idiot.

If you could manage to call me an idiot while using reason, logic, or law, I would have no objection. That, at least, would smack of decent discourse. I believe, though, you have mistaken "saying he's wrong, and repeating that he's an idiot" for any kind of evidence or reason which supports your assertions. As I said, repetition of a statement does not make it fact.

And, no, saying that you cannot change reality by repeating it would not be ad hominem. By your own assertions above, I have not attacked any character flaws or actions, merely pointed out that you have failed to clarify your opinion beyond simple reiteration.

3.) This is the same as number one, synonyms are fun!

4.) Begging the Question: "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."

First off, this is a thread, so none of it requires proof like in a courtroom, it requires evidence, and instead of just listing terms from a google search of "logical fallacies" I suggest you give me a specific example of where it was committed.

5.) This isn't a survey, it's a thread. Believe me, I took college level statistics, I know what a biased sample is, but instead of creating a random sample survey on this issue, I MADE A THREAD TO DISCUSS IT, because that's what this website is for. It's not as if I intent to use this data for anything, and I don't see how the people in my thread being biased pokes any holes in my argument.

Another classic case of "I know you're wrong here, but I'm not going to tell you how or why you're wrong"

Pot, kettle, black. I'm impressed that you have the testicular fortitude to accuse me of that when your previous post ended in a rather abrupt "Your argument is so fundamentally flawed and outrageous that I feel the need to give you a visual analogy" rather than dealing with any of the rejoinders, ripostes, or responses I had made.

I have endeavored to respond to every part of your arguments. If you cannot achieve the same level of respect (or decent debating technique), simply let me know.

How am I supposed to defend myself against that sort of "Ad Hominem Abusive" (see, I can throw around Latin phrases too). If you want to tell me I'm wrong, a good start would be telling me WHY or else we're going to get nowhere.

Alright, I think I'm done for now.

You mean like the entire post I wrote, outlining the things you had failed to respond to?

 

[Seldon2639]

It's not just unethical to remove advertised features, it's illegal.

That's what False Advertising is.

You're gonna keep going to that well until Lassie drags you away from it, aren't you?

I'll repeat again: the cases you're talking about are not under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission, and civil courts do not recognize "false advertising" as an actionable offense.

The actual claims are brought under contracts, which makes it a different ballgame. But, I wonder how many times and in how many different ways I can try to explain this before you will eventually read the damned pleadings and realize that these suits claim various breaches of contract, which has different standards; especially when it comes to the damages which stem from a violation.

 

[Danpascooch]

I only quoted the arguments that have some merit to them, and not the other drivel, let's get to it shall we?

Ah, our arbiter of reason and logic has returned to us. But, I beg you to enlighten me as to the errors of my other arguments. Your overwhelming intellect and knowledge of the law and procedure make me want to glean as much as I can from you/

1.) "Appeal to the majority"

How is this a "logical fallacy"? Should I change my argument because the majority of people agree with me? This is how I feel, if you think I should change my argument in order to be WITH THE MINORITY, then you're an idiot, because I came to my decision through logic and research, not out of a desire to "rage against the majority" which WOULD be a logical fallacy.

You misunderstand. You specifically said that my argument is wrong because no one else has made such a claim here (elsewhere, I'll bet people have, given that the senior attorneys at my firm made similar conclusions to mine). You're claiming the validity of your argument based on the popularity of it, that's the fallacy. But, the fact of the matter is that you have provided neither research (aside from cursory "these advertisements seem to say this, therefore they're lying" type), nor logic in the classical sense, much less legal reference to support your opinion. Please do not claim otherwise.

2.) Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

Indeed. I'm glad both of us can use wikipedia (though, if you could check out the actual claims from the suits, and google those, it might brighten the issue for you). But, if you cannot see how your posts have engaged in this, I apologize for the confusiion.

Sounds like Ad Hominem abusive to me! Care to continue accusing me of something you're committing yourself? I would be committing Ad Hominem if INSTEAD of arguing logically I corrected you on spelling or something. What I am doing is simultaneously using logic and reason and calling you an idiot.

If you could manage to call me an idiot while using reason, logic, or law, I would have no objection. That, at least, would smack of decent discourse. I believe, though, you have mistaken "saying he's wrong, and repeating that he's an idiot" for any kind of evidence or reason which supports your assertions. As I said, repetition of a statement does not make it fact.

And, no, saying that you cannot change reality by repeating it would not be ad hominem. By your own assertions above, I have not attacked any character flaws or actions, merely pointed out that you have failed to clarify your opinion beyond simple reiteration.

3.) This is the same as number one, synonyms are fun!

4.) Begging the Question: "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."

First off, this is a thread, so none of it requires proof like in a courtroom, it requires evidence, and instead of just listing terms from a google search of "logical fallacies" I suggest you give me a specific example of where it was committed.

5.) This isn't a survey, it's a thread. Believe me, I took college level statistics, I know what a biased sample is, but instead of creating a random sample survey on this issue, I MADE A THREAD TO DISCUSS IT, because that's what this website is for. It's not as if I intent to use this data for anything, and I don't see how the people in my thread being biased pokes any holes in my argument.

Another classic case of "I know you're wrong here, but I'm not going to tell you how or why you're wrong"

Pot, kettle, black. I'm impressed that you have the testicular fortitude to accuse me of that when your previous post ended in a rather abrupt "Your argument is so fundamentally flawed and outrageous that I feel the need to give you a visual analogy" rather than dealing with any of the rejoinders, ripostes, or responses I had made.

I have endeavored to respond to every part of your arguments. If you cannot achieve the same level of respect (or decent debating technique), simply let me know.

How am I supposed to defend myself against that sort of "Ad Hominem Abusive" (see, I can throw around Latin phrases too). If you want to tell me I'm wrong, a good start would be telling me WHY or else we're going to get nowhere.

Alright, I think I'm done for now.

You mean like the entire post I wrote, outlining the things you had failed to respond to?

This is getting nowhere, you're obviously so arrogant you can't see past your own keyboard, I'm done arguing with you, if you want to tell yourself that means you win, that's fine, go ahead, but it's not true, it simply means I am sick of wasting time on your "But people EXPECT things they buy to repossessed when the company decides they want to" argument.

 

[Seldon2639]

This is getting nowhere, you're obviously so arrogant you can't see past your own keyboard, I'm done arguing with you, if you want to tell yourself that means you win, that's fine, go ahead, but it's not true, it simply means I am sick of wasting time on your "But people EXPECT things they buy to repossessed when the company decides they want to" argument.

"Another classic case of "I know you're wrong here, but I'm not going to tell you how or why you're wrong"", eh?

If you want the last word, I have no interest in giving it to you. Your points are fallacious, your legal conclusions erroneous, and your research lackluster at best. If you have response to the actual law here, please include it. Hell, go get your lawyer father, I'd love to get his opinion on the issue. He, I presume, actually cites legal authority when he makes legal arguments.

 

[Low Key]

Is the OP a lawyer? I highly doubt it. When I read things like "it has no legal precedence!!!", I begin to think "okay, whatever you say Average Joe". You telling me about the legality of something is like me telling you about masonry. Sure, I know a little bit, but certainly not enough to tell you what's best.

My friend has a PS3 and last weekend, he decided to do an update. When he did, there was a large screen that popped up warning him about the whole Linux thing. He had the option to go through with it or not, and he decided to click "OK". No one is forcing anyone else to click that button. If you value online play, where the network is owned by Sony, you will play by their rules. If that means you need to give up Linux to play it, then that's what you need to do. It's as simple as that. If you don't want to play online, everything that Sony advertised is still there. Sony isn't obligated to give you internet access just because you want it, just as you aren't obligated to update your console if Sony wants you to. PERIOD.

 

[Danpascooch]

This is getting nowhere, you're obviously so arrogant you can't see past your own keyboard, I'm done arguing with you, if you want to tell yourself that means you win, that's fine, go ahead, but it's not true, it simply means I am sick of wasting time on your "But people EXPECT things they buy to repossessed when the company decides they want to" argument.

"Another classic case of "I know you're wrong here, but I'm not going to tell you how or why you're wrong"", eh?

If you want the last word, I have no interest in giving it to you. Your points are fallacious, your legal conclusions erroneous, and your research lackluster at best. If you have response to the actual law here, please include it. Hell, go get your lawyer father, I'd love to get his opinion on the issue. He, I presume, actually cites legal authority when he makes legal arguments.

I stopped because we are stuck in a loop, with me reciting why I'm right, and you taking an irrational dump on it in the same fashion every time.

You've reached a whole new level of arrogance

Real classy telling me to go run to my lawyer dad, why don't you tell me what your parents do so I can drag them into this too.

I have no wish to continue an infinite loop with an asshole, but that's just me.

I'd call it textbook narcissism, but I'm sure you'd look up some Latin phrases on Wikipedia so you can spew them out whether relevant or not in order to look superior. Which ironically would prove my point.

I don't care if I get the last word, go ahead, take it, it's obviously important to you that you feel you're better than everyone else, so be my guest. It's not my responsibility to stop you from making an impression of your self as an arrogant idiot.

 

[Seldon2639]

I stopped because we are stuck in a loop, with me reciting why I'm right, and you taking an irrational dump on it in the same fashion every time.

You've reached a whole new level of arrogance

Real classy telling me to go run to my lawyer dad, why don't you tell me what your parents do so I can drag them into this too.

I have no wish to continue an infinite loop with an asshole, but that's just me.

I'd call it textbook narcissism, but I'm sure you'd look up some Latin phrases on Wikipedia so you can spew them out whether relevant or not in order to look superior.

You cited him first, not I. If you want to claim legal expertise based self-education and your father's profession, that's fine. But you have to back it up, no? I see, once again, that when you've reached the point where you cannot argue the facts, and cannot argue the law, you pound your fist on the table as loud as you can. If you have a response to any of the legal arguments presented above, I'm eager to hear it (seriously, I really want to know how you're going to show damages, even if/when you can show liability). If you can't, then I can only presume that this affectation of outrage is pure theater. There's no infinite loop here, and any delay is in your refusal to respond to my points (we're three posts of yours removed from them, I believe).

Put up, or kindly shut up, if you would.

And, no, I don't look up Latin phrases on wikipedia. Ad hominem is kind of a common phrase.

For your edification, my father works in market research, my mother teaches middle school, my best friend is getting his master's degree in physics, my step-father is in telecommunications, my uncle is a statistician, my other friends are engineers, economists, med students, mathematics students, and IT people.

You know what I manage to do? Not claim expertise on any of those issues or in any of those areas. I have no skill or knowledge of any of those things granted to me by proximity to ones who do. You made the point that you know the law because your father is a lawyer. If that was irrelevant, why did you mention it?

 

[Seldon2639]

Is the OP a lawyer? I highly doubt it. When I read things like "it has no legal precedence!!!", I begin to think "okay, whatever you say Average Joe". You telling me about the legality of something is like me telling you about masonry. Sure, I know a little bit, but certainly not enough to tell you what's best.

My friend has a PS3 and last weekend, he decided to do an update. When he did, there was a large screen that popped up warning him about the whole Linux thing. He had the option to go through with it or not, and he decided to click "OK". No one is forcing anyone else to click that button. If you value online play, where the network is owned by Sony, you will play by their rules. If that means you need to give up Linux to play it, then that's what you need to do. It's as simple as that. If you don't want to play online, everything that Sony advertised is still there. Sony isn't obligated to give you internet access just because you want it, just as you aren't obligated to update your console if Sony wants you to. PERIOD.

What makes me sad is that it doesn't take any specific legal training here, only a realization that civil law is distinct from administrative procedures. Hell, all it would really take is reading the damned pleadings, and googling phrases like "breach of contract", "promissory estoppel", "unjust enrichment" and "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing". It would not be difficult to determine the elements of such claims, and how they are proven, defended against, and what remedies exist.

Seriously. Every complaint made in federal court is really good about specifically listing the principle under which the claims are made.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

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

You seriously think there is the remotest possibility of these lawsuits causing Sony to "crash"?

Well I know the PS3's popular in Japan, but not so much in the UK/US. Furthermore they're losing out on each unit already, and if they're forced to give everybody their money back, it doesn't really look like all sunshine and dasies for them.

Edit: Or at least that's my reasoning

 

[Danpascooch]

I stopped because we are stuck in a loop, with me reciting why I'm right, and you taking an irrational dump on it in the same fashion every time.

You've reached a whole new level of arrogance

Real classy telling me to go run to my lawyer dad, why don't you tell me what your parents do so I can drag them into this too.

I have no wish to continue an infinite loop with an asshole, but that's just me.

I'd call it textbook narcissism, but I'm sure you'd look up some Latin phrases on Wikipedia so you can spew them out whether relevant or not in order to look superior.

You cited him first, not I. If you want to claim legal expertise based self-education and your father's profession, that's fine. But you have to back it up, no? I see, once again, that when you've reached the point where you cannot argue the facts, and cannot argue the law, you pound your fist on the table as loud as you can. If you have a response to any of the legal arguments presented above, I'm eager to hear it (seriously, I really want to know how you're going to show damages, even if/when you can show liability). If you can't, then I can only presume that this affectation of outrage is pure theater. There's no infinite loop here, and any delay is in your refusal to respond to my points (we're three posts of yours removed from them, I believe).

Put up, or kindly shut up, if you would.

And, no, I don't look up Latin phrases on wikipedia. Ad hominem is kind of a common phrase.

For your edification, my father works in market research, my mother teaches middle school, my best friend is getting his master's degree in physics, my step-father is in telecommunications, my uncle is a statistician, my other friends are engineers, economists, med students, mathematics students, and IT people.

You know what I manage to do? Not claim expertise on any of those issues or in any of those areas. I have no skill or knowledge of any of those things granted to me by proximity to ones who do. You made the point that you know the law because your father is a lawyer. If that was irrelevant, why did you mention it?

I mentioned it because people asked me how I knew of the topic. And other people (like you) claim I know nothing of the law, so it was only proper to tell you why I do know something about the law. If you want to continue to attack my background instead of my argument, feel free, it only helps prove that you think your argument can't stand up on it's own merits. You didn't have to mention your source of any degree of expertise because I'm not enough of an arrogant ass to think your source of the fundamental knowledge is relevant. But since you were enough of an ass to think it's relevant I supplied an answer. Now you're trying to hold the fact that I gave an answer against me, and I won't stand for that shit.

If you want to continue an infinite loop of me saying "You're an idiot, a company can't just take away something you payed for whenever they want" and you specifying "Yes they can" (because you seemly don't know the difference between a purchase and a rental/subscription) that's fine.

But I for one don't want to continue this loop.

And it's not that I don't want to tell you the facts, or that I don't have them, it's that I have already countered this crappy argument of yours about 15 times, and now we're just looping.

Sure Sony didn't say "you'll have this forever" but THEY DON'T HAVE TO! You aren't "Renting" a PS3 or "subscribing" to Linux Support, you PURCHASED a PS3 that promised it came with Linux support in addition to the other features on the list.

When you purchase something, you OWN it:

Own: to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power, dominion, etc. - Dictionary.com

FULL claim, authority, power and dominion.

They can take away PSN because you don't own that, but they cannot take away static abilities of your console, because you own it.

They can do whatever they want server side, but when they pull it out of the device you own then it's illegal.

These kind of loopholes you are trying to create don't hold any water, not only are they a cheap trick at best, but they are a cheap trick that is wrong

If you want to argue with me, here's a list of steps on how to do it:

1.) Say something (which is undoubtedly your same argument repeated over again)
2.) Read my last few posts and pretend that those are my reply to what you just said.
3.) Say something again.

Because that's all we're doing, if you want to waste time in an infinite loop go ahead, but don't call me out because I'm smart enough to realize we're at an impasse, and don't want to waste my time rehashing our respective arguments. Just so you know, just because someone realizes they're stuck in a loop and doesn't want to continue looping, doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that they realized it's a waste of time in every sense of the word.

If you have something completely new to argue, I'll be glad to hear it, if not, then if you'll excuse me, I'll be leaving the loop.

 

[Burgertime]

Is the OP a lawyer? I highly doubt it. When I read things like "it has no legal precedence!!!", I begin to think "okay, whatever you say Average Joe". You telling me about the legality of something is like me telling you about masonry. Sure, I know a little bit, but certainly not enough to tell you what's best.

My friend has a PS3 and last weekend, he decided to do an update. When he did, there was a large screen that popped up warning him about the whole Linux thing. He had the option to go through with it or not, and he decided to click "OK". No one is forcing anyone else to click that button. If you value online play, where the network is owned by Sony, you will play by their rules. If that means you need to give up Linux to play it, then that's what you need to do. It's as simple as that. If you don't want to play online, everything that Sony advertised is still there. Sony isn't obligated to give you internet access just because you want it, just as you aren't obligated to update your console if Sony wants you to. PERIOD.

And clearly you didn't read anything in the past 16 pages.
If you don't update, you don't just loose the ability to play online. You loose the ability to play any games after April 1 2010 that require the 3.21 update. One of which is already out on the market: Red Dead Redemption. Putting this game into your system will check for the latest update and install it. If you don't update and remove Other OS from you system, you can't play the game. There was also an update right after 3.21 that was required to even play the movie Avatar.
Every single update before 3.21 and after it were labeled as being required. 3.21 was the only one that they put the word "optional" onto, and yet everyone loves to point out that one word and go "See! See! You choose to update! It was optional!". You update to the newest required update, and it's going to force 3.21 on you.

And oh, just because someone has some knowledge about legal matters that you don't makes their opinion null and void to you? The OP doesn't have to be a lawyer, and you don't have to be either to understand what happened. Sony broke post purchase bait and switch bylaws and is hiding behind a paper badge they drew themselves and their lawyers hoping no one will stand up to them. Well guess what. People are standing up to them. People being defensive, taking Sony's side, and ignore the facts is exactly what Sony wants. They don't want anyone to question what they did. The Sony Defense Force loves to point at the user agreement and claim it as a legally binding document. It's not. Sony tells you they can remove an advertised feature in there because they know that enough people won't question it and think that just because it's in their agreement, it allows them to do so. A user agreement doesn't have priority over a state or federal law.

You're right about 1 thing. Sony isn't obligated to give you internet access, but that's not what this whole discussion is about. What they ARE obligated to do is provide you with the features that were advertised to you and to remove something after you've paid for it is against the law. Even before the system came out Sony's PR department and top people were praising the Other OS feature and telling everyone how important it was that the PS3 be seen as a multimedia piece of technology that could replace the PC. Sony's response to the backlash to 3.21 was nothing more than "Huh? What multimedia? We're a gaming company. See our ads. Gaming.". They took their current PR focus and acted like their pre-Slim advertising never existed.

It's getting to the point where those of us who took the time to research the legality of this issue and try to explain it to everyone else are going to have to start explaining with finger puppets, crayons and small words.

-It was advertised
-No it wasn't
-Yes it was, here's a link
-That's someone mentioning it, that's not advertising
-Yes it is, by legal definition that's advertising. Here's a link to the definition and the laws concerning it
- *doesn't read it* Blah blah blah. That's nice. You want a cookie for wasting your time? It's not advertising.

 

[Danpascooch]

Is the OP a lawyer? I highly doubt it. When I read things like "it has no legal precedence!!!", I begin to think "okay, whatever you say Average Joe". You telling me about the legality of something is like me telling you about masonry. Sure, I know a little bit, but certainly not enough to tell you what's best.

My friend has a PS3 and last weekend, he decided to do an update. When he did, there was a large screen that popped up warning him about the whole Linux thing. He had the option to go through with it or not, and he decided to click "OK". No one is forcing anyone else to click that button. If you value online play, where the network is owned by Sony, you will play by their rules. If that means you need to give up Linux to play it, then that's what you need to do. It's as simple as that. If you don't want to play online, everything that Sony advertised is still there. Sony isn't obligated to give you internet access just because you want it, just as you aren't obligated to update your console if Sony wants you to. PERIOD.

And clearly you didn't read anything in the past 16 pages.
If you don't update, you don't just loose the ability to play online. You loose the ability to play any games after April 1 2010 that require the 3.21 update. One of which is already out on the market: Red Dead Redemption. Putting this game into your system will check for the latest update and install it. If you don't update and remove Other OS from you system, you can't play the game. There was also an update right after 3.21 that was required to even play the movie Avatar.
Every single update before 3.21 and after it were labeled as being required. 3.21 was the only one that they put the word "optional" onto, and yet everyone loves to point out that one word and go "See! See! You choose to update! It was optional!". You update to the newest required update, and it's going to force 3.21 on you.

And oh, just because someone has some knowledge about legal matters that you don't makes their opinion null and void to you? The OP doesn't have to be a lawyer, and you don't have to be either to understand what happened. Sony broke post purchase bait and switch bylaws and is hiding behind a paper badge they drew themselves and their lawyers hoping no one will stand up to them. Well guess what. People are standing up to them. People being defensive, taking Sony's side, and ignore the facts is exactly what Sony wants. They don't want anyone to question what they did. The Sony Defense Force loves to point at the user agreement and claim it as a legally binding document. It's not. Sony tells you they can remove an advertised feature in there because they know that enough people won't question it and think that just because it's in their agreement, it allows them to do so. A user agreement doesn't have priority over a state or federal law.

You're right about 1 thing. Sony isn't obligated to give you internet access, but that's not what this whole discussion is about. What they ARE obligated to do is provide you with the features that were advertised to you and to remove something after you've paid for it is against the law. Even before the system came out Sony's PR department and top people were praising the Other OS feature and telling everyone how important it was that the PS3 be seen as a multimedia piece of technology that could replace the PC. Sony's response to the backlash to 3.21 was nothing more than "Huh? What multimedia? We're a gaming company. See our ads. Gaming.". They took their current PR focus and acted like their pre-Slim advertising never existed.

It's getting to the point where those of us who took the time to research the legality of this issue and try to explain it to everyone else are going to have to start explaining with finger puppets, crayons and small words.

-It was advertised
-No it wasn't
-Yes it was, here's a link
-That's someone mentioning it, that's not advertising
-Yes it is, by legal definition that's advertising. Here's a link to the definition and the laws concerning it
- *doesn't read it* Blah blah blah. That's nice. You want a cookie for wasting your time? It's not advertising.

It's funny, people say things like the guy you quoted did, and then WONDER why I have to repeat myself.

It's unbelievable.

 

[Seldon2639]

I mentioned it because people asked me how I knew of the topic.

If you want to continue an infinite loop of me saying "You're an idiot, a company can't just take away something you payed for whenever they want" and you specifying "Yes they can" (because you seemly don't know the difference between a purchase and a rental/subscription) that's fine.

But I for one don't want to continue this loop.

And it's not that I don't want to tell you the facts, or that I don't have them, it's that I have already countered this crappy argument of yours about 15 times, and now we're just looping.

I listed above five different legal issues you have yet to respond to (I can repost them here, if you'd like), and you have ignored them. The debate is not what you list it as, and your oversimplification belies your lack of knowledge of the legal questions herein. As I said, even if we assume you can show liability, you must demonstrate damages (in this case stemming from an adverse reliance upon the broken promises and contract as stipulated).

Demonstrate said damages, please. Show the adverse reliance, and the actual real harm that stemmed from it. Repeating that they lied is insufficient to the charges, and you instead must demonstrate one of a few things.

1. You could show that none of the people in the class would have bought a Playstation 3 game console save for the promises of Linux capability (the permanence of which is for the moment irrelevant, as that was part of the question of whether a contract existed, I have accepted for the sake of argument here that it does). This would entitle each member of the class reimbursement of all cost of the console. Of course, a counter-suit for unjust enrichment would make sense, and they would likely have to return the consoles.
2. You could show that the company was unjustly enriched by giving the consumer a product worth less fair market value than the monies they paid, given the reduction in functionality, but then the damages would be whatever the value of the monies paid exceeds the value of the reduced-functionality PS3 (the issue here being that if a PS3 without Linux, or indeed PSN, is worth $500 on the fair market, there are ipso facto no damages)
3. You could show that the continuing reliance of those who used Linux on SCEA's promises to continue support for Linux damaged them in some way.

Save for those, there are no damages which would fall under the adverse reliance requirement of a promissory estoppel claim, or a breach of contract claim (the latter of which uses monetary compensation to make the claimant "whole"). Without showing evidence of unjust enrichment (the value of the monies paid exceeding the value of the product given the changes), there are no other damages inherent in the claims made in the suits.

As before, simply proving "they lied, it's wrong" is not sufficient, even if we accept your statement as completely true.

You have yet to respond to this. Period.

These kind of loopholes you are trying to create don't hold any water, not only are they a cheap trick at best, but they are a cheap trick that is wrong

If you want to argue with me, here's a list of steps on how to do it:

1.) Say something (which is undoubtedly your same argument repeated over again)
2.) Read my last few posts and pretend that those are my reply to what you just said.
3.) Say something again.

Because that's all we're doing, if you want to waste time in an infinite loop go ahead, but don't call me out because I'm smart enough to realize we're at an impasse, and don't want to waste my time rehashing our respective arguments. Just so you know, just because someone realizes their stuck in a loop and doesn't want to continue looping, doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that they realized it's a waste of time in every sense of the word.

If you have something completely new to argue, I'll be glad to hear it, if not, then if you'll excuse me, I'll be leaving the loop.

You can't really claim that I've offered you nothing new to argue when you haven't responded to the previous "new" arguments. True, they're not "new" in the sense that I am only presenting them herewith, but they are "new" in the sense of "you have yet to contest them".

If you would like to withdraw your claims of expertise, and simply cease this discussion, that's fine. But don't misrepresent the fact that I have presented substantially new arguments to which you have failed to respond

 

[Seldon2639]

~Snip~

I don't think anyone is arguing whether the advertising existed, and (indeed) I have offered to accept for the sake of argument that there is a contract created by the advertisements, independent of the EULA, and even that SCEA breached it.

Now, finish the process for us. SCEA isn't being charged with violating state or federal law (which would be suit brought by the government itself, or at least an executive agency), it is being sued in civil court by private citizens under contract law. In order to get some recompense, then, you must meet the elements of a breach of contract claim.

For simplicity's sake, I'll list the most basic elements:

1. A contract must be shown to have existed
2. That contract must be shown to have been relied upon and fulfilled by the party bringing suit. If the plaintiff has also breached the contract, he cannot sue for breach of contract.
3. The contract must be shown to have been breached by the defendant
4. The plaintiff must show damages resulting from his adverse reliance on the contractual provisions.

I've granted you the first element, even though I disagree. I've granted you the second and third under similar understanding. But you still must show the damages. As I have said, it is not sufficient to prove (under civil contract law) that a breach occurred, you must show damages.

What damages exist here? The loss of functionality? Maybe, but those damages would amount to the difference in value between the original cost and current functionality of the Playstation 3 console. The cost of the original purchase? Maybe, but then you'd have to show that those in the class bringing action would not have purchased the PS3 save for their reliance on promises to support Linux.

I'll grant everything for the sake of argument save for your proof of damages. Show me those.

 

[Danpascooch]

I mentioned it because people asked me how I knew of the topic.

If you want to continue an infinite loop of me saying "You're an idiot, a company can't just take away something you payed for whenever they want" and you specifying "Yes they can" (because you seemly don't know the difference between a purchase and a rental/subscription) that's fine.

But I for one don't want to continue this loop.

And it's not that I don't want to tell you the facts, or that I don't have them, it's that I have already countered this crappy argument of yours about 15 times, and now we're just looping.

I listed above five different legal issues you have yet to respond to (I can repost them here, if you'd like), and you have ignored them. The debate is not what you list it as, and your oversimplification belies your lack of knowledge of the legal questions herein. As I said, even if we assume you can show liability, you must demonstrate damages (in this case stemming from an adverse reliance upon the broken promises and contract as stipulated).

Demonstrate said damages, please. Show the adverse reliance, and the actual real harm that stemmed from it. Repeating that they lied is insufficient to the charges, and you instead must demonstrate one of a few things.

1. You could show that none of the people in the class would have bought a Playstation 3 game console save for the promises of Linux capability (the permanence of which is for the moment irrelevant, as that was part of the question of whether a contract existed, I have accepted for the sake of argument here that it does). This would entitle each member of the class reimbursement of all cost of the console. Of course, a counter-suit for unjust enrichment would make sense, and they would likely have to return the consoles.
2. You could show that the company was unjustly enriched by giving the consumer a product worth less fair market value than the monies they paid, given the reduction in functionality, but then the damages would be whatever the value of the monies paid exceeds the value of the reduced-functionality PS3 (the issue here being that if a PS3 without Linux, or indeed PSN, is worth $500 on the fair market, there are ipso facto no damages)
3. You could show that the continuing reliance of those who used Linux on SCEA's promises to continue support for Linux damaged them in some way.

Save for those, there are no damages which would fall under the adverse reliance requirement of a promissory estoppel claim, or a breach of contract claim (the latter of which uses monetary compensation to make the claimant "whole"). Without showing evidence of unjust enrichment (the value of the monies paid exceeding the value of the product given the changes), there are no other damages inherent in the claims made in the suits.

As before, simply proving "they lied, it's wrong" is not sufficient, even if we accept your statement as completely true.

You have yet to respond to this. Period.

These kind of loopholes you are trying to create don't hold any water, not only are they a cheap trick at best, but they are a cheap trick that is wrong

If you want to argue with me, here's a list of steps on how to do it:

1.) Say something (which is undoubtedly your same argument repeated over again)
2.) Read my last few posts and pretend that those are my reply to what you just said.
3.) Say something again.

Because that's all we're doing, if you want to waste time in an infinite loop go ahead, but don't call me out because I'm smart enough to realize we're at an impasse, and don't want to waste my time rehashing our respective arguments. Just so you know, just because someone realizes their stuck in a loop and doesn't want to continue looping, doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that they realized it's a waste of time in every sense of the word.

If you have something completely new to argue, I'll be glad to hear it, if not, then if you'll excuse me, I'll be leaving the loop.

You can't really claim that I've offered you nothing new to argue when you haven't responded to the previous "new" arguments. True, they're not "new" in the sense that I am only presenting them herewith, but they are "new" in the sense of "you have yet to contest them".

If you would like to withdraw your claims of expertise, and simply cease this discussion, that's fine. But don't misrepresent the fact that I have presented substantially new arguments to which you have failed to respond

Don't give me this crap, there are a whole host of points of mine you haven't responded too either.

I don't have to show any of that if they go for PUNITIVE and not compensatory damages, if it were punitive, all they would need to show is that they violated their ownership of the console by stealing away a feature that they purchased.

1.) This is a requirement when going for compensatory damages, not punitive
2.) This is totally irrelevant, worth is an opinion, if they didn't give you a system with features they advertised it with, then that's false advertising, they're not immune to that because you say "it's still worth it without those features"
3.) Damage them? That's effortless to prove, all they would need to do is show they have a partition that was using it, that would prove that the update damaged them by taking away a capability of the console that they used.

And do you know what false advertising is? In layman's terms "they lied" is EXACTLY what it means. This is a thread, I made the OP with the impression of allowing ordinary people of reasonable intelligence read it regardless of legal knowledge, so yes, I had to simplify a bit.