Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Danpascooch]

I'm not making anything up.

They are not guilty of a "Switch After Sale", but that doesn't mean they didn't commit ANY false advertising that is outlined in other sections of the law.

They are also not guilty of Arson, but I didn't mention that and quote it's section in the legal code because it's IRRELEVANT!

I never claimed they specifically committed a "switch after sale" so maybe you should try harder when telling me I'm wrong about them committing a crime I NEVER SAID THEY COMMITTED!

That's the only part of FTC's advertising laws that specifically refer to a change in service or a feature removed from a product.

Did you check all applicable state laws?

Also, I'd like a link to where you found that legal excerpt.

 

[theSovietConnection]

First off, what country's laws are you basing your argument with? I'd like to know so I can better respond.

 

[Danpascooch]

First off, what country's laws are you basing your argument with? I'd like to know so I can better respond.

United States of America, I better clarify that, ty for pointing it out.

 

[JEBWrench]

Did you check all applicable state laws?

Also, I'd like a link to where you found that legal excerpt.

In truth, I did not check all state laws. So, if you have one that illustrates otherwise, please share. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if proven thusly.

Also, here's the link:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm

 

[malestrithe]

I checked the box my PS3 came in and it does not say anything about a linux based operating system on it.

Not convinced by your reasonings. I do not support the lawsuits not because of your claims but because every single last one of them is full of sour grapes.

You should just come out and say what you really mean. You think the lawsuits are good because of the EULA.

I did, the thread is actually ENTITLED "why you should SUPPORT the lawsuits.

And your PS3 might not have that feature advertised depending on when you bought it, if it's not on the box, then you are not a victim of the false advertising. However, thousands of people DO have that feature advertised on the box.

It is up to them to prove that. They will need to brandish the box and show me the line about other os support.

No you did not. Your thread title is not about EULA. It is about other OS lawsuits. Those are two different things.

My thread is about the lawsuits, I don't really get what you mean, what are you claiming I should come out and say?

I am saying that the suers are justified and that the lawsuit is important, I mention the EULA simply because it is the number one argument people use as to why these lawsuits are NOT justified.

Your entire post is not about other os issue. It is not my fault that the main point of your argument is about EULA and not other os. You are arguing over what makers can and cannot do with their product after you buy it. That is it. There is nothing in it about other OS or anything along those lines.

It is not false advertising when it was not on the box to begin with. Nowhere on the box does it say linux compatibility. It may be in the instruction books, but it was not on the box. I have a black monolith model and not a slim.

Not convinced by your arguments and It seems that very few people are taken by them as well. Try again.

 

[Danpascooch]

Did you check all applicable state laws?

Also, I'd like a link to where you found that legal excerpt.

In truth, I did not check all state laws. So, if you have one that illustrates otherwise, please share. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if proven thusly.

Also, here's the link:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/baitads-gd.htm

Thanks, time to do me some digging through this site.

I don't agree with what I've seen from you so far, but massive props for citation and quoting actual law, too many people are just shouting their head off here.

 

[SilentHunter7]

They are also not guilty of Arson, but I didn't mention that and quote it's section in the legal code because it's IRRELEVANT!

Legal Code is Irrelevant. You will be assimilated.

Anyway, I agree with the reasoning behind the removal of Linux functionality, but good intentions don't mean shit to the law.

George Bush's Warrant-less Wiretapping, and suspension of Habeas Corpus was done with the best intentions. That doesn't make it legal, though.

Plus, I don't want some MS or Sony lawyer pointing to this case 5 years down the road and saying that they have the right to charge us fees without notice, install hidden malware on our computers, or randomly cancel our Live accounts, because we signed an EULA that said they could.

 

[JEBWrench]

Thanks, time to do me some digging through this site.

I don't agree with what I've seen from you so far, but massive props for citation and quoting actual law, too many people are just shouting their head off here.

False advertising / deceptive claims are getting to be a big deal for us here - because we're in the process of changing our small business' "mission statement". So we take this stuff pretty seriously.

Like I said, if you find something that I couldn't, then I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

 

[Danpascooch]

Thanks, time to do me some digging through this site.

I don't agree with what I've seen from you so far, but massive props for citation and quoting actual law, too many people are just shouting their head off here.

False advertising / deceptive claims are getting to be a big deal for us here - because we're in the process of changing our small business' "mission statement". So we take this stuff pretty seriously.

Like I said, if you find something that I couldn't, then I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

Honestly, I don't think I'll find anything, I don't have the resources of a lawyer, or the time to dedicate, but I'll take a look.

That said, I'm not saying you need to agree with me of course, it's all opinion based, we'll see what happens when the dust settles in the actual case

 

[Danpascooch]

Thanks, time to do me some digging through this site.

I don't agree with what I've seen from you so far, but massive props for citation and quoting actual law, too many people are just shouting their head off here.

False advertising / deceptive claims are getting to be a big deal for us here - because we're in the process of changing our small business' "mission statement". So we take this stuff pretty seriously.

Like I said, if you find something that I couldn't, then I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

"removing of the Other OS is illegal in the EU,
EU Directive 1999/44/EC:
The goods must
? comply with the description given by the seller and posses the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods
? be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase. <??
? are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same type are used
? show the same quality and performance, which are normal in goods of the same type and which consumers can reasonably expect. This will also take into account any public statements made about the specific characteristics of the goods by the producer, seller or in their advertising.
I think that this Up(Down)date clearly violates the second point, every person in the EU should report to their local consumer authority."

I found this online, it doesn't apply to the US, but I'll keep looking, as I am willing to bet the US has a similar, if not identical law.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Did McDonald's actually lose or did they settle out of court? From a legal stand point it makes a huge difference. Anyway if the American Airforce does pursue an action for being screwed over with their thingy clusters Sony might fold in the face of the "Sony fucks with intell. that saves the lives of soldiers" image.

They lost. The court battle went on afterward where the payment was lowered, but still well into the 7 figure range.

 

[Danpascooch]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

Tell me, if I bought a PS3 two years ago, what sort of "research" could I have done that would have told me Linux would not be available in the future? Perhaps some sort of fortune telling?

 

[Flames66]

I absolutely disagree with Sony retroactively removing Linux capabilities for PS3 users, but it isn't quite as simple as the OP's analogy:

" That would be like a car company no longer offering leather seats on a car, so they visit every person they sold that car with leather seats to, and rip the seats out of the car with no compensation."

It doesn't really fit because a car company does not have to make updates, or work with the programming, in fact the seats have 0 effect whatsoever on the company.

Also, there's another thread about this already, here's a link:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.196716-Sony-Hit-With-4th-Other-OS-Lawsuit

They do if they have safety problems. It's the same principal with electronics except that they are a much faster moving field, so updates have to be done much more frequently.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

He can keep his PSN if he doesn't want to continue playing games? That's a winner of an argument there. On the one hand he loses a feature most people never used. On the other, he could keep the feature and lose the functionality most people purchased the system for.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

Oh, I see.

I'm no legal expert, so...

 

[JEBWrench]

"removing of the Other OS is illegal in the EU,
EU Directive 1999/44/EC:
The goods must
? comply with the description given by the seller and posses the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods
? be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase. <??
? are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same type are used
? show the same quality and performance, which are normal in goods of the same type and which consumers can reasonably expect. This will also take into account any public statements made about the specific characteristics of the goods by the producer, seller or in their advertising.
I think that this Up(Down)date clearly violates the second point, every person in the EU should report to their local consumer authority."

I found this online, it doesn't apply to the US, but I'll keep looking, as I am willing to bet the US has a similar, if not identical law.

It wouldn't surprise me if there is. I just didn't find it.

Of course, if there is, Sony might be able to get away with it just by releasing new advertisements specifically stating that the Other OS option no longer exists. The US false advertising law has some pretty slap-on-the-wristish reprecussions to it.

Believe me, I support the use of alternate OSes on hardware. I'm just not sure yet as to if Sony really did break the law.

 

[shadow skill]

Thanks, time to do me some digging through this site.

I don't agree with what I've seen from you so far, but massive props for citation and quoting actual law, too many people are just shouting their head off here.

False advertising / deceptive claims are getting to be a big deal for us here - because we're in the process of changing our small business' "mission statement". So we take this stuff pretty seriously.

Like I said, if you find something that I couldn't, then I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

Well this fourth lawsuit is alleging that Sony is in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies act. You can find it here:http://www.harp.org/clra.htm

This part in particular:

(19) Inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract.

 

[spartan231490]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

Tell me, if I bought a PS3 two years ago, what sort of "research" could I have done that would have told me Linux would not be available in the future? Perhaps some sort of fortune telling?

U could have read the user agreement and saw that they reserved the right to remove the linux option. I agree Frank, this is more dangerous to the justice system as a precident for the lack of personal responsibility, than as a precident for the removal of systems that teh user agreement warns they can remove.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Here is my opinion: This kind of lawsuit destroys personal responsibility. Sony may be wrong about removing the OS, but the man should have been an informed customer and done his research.

Lawsuits like this clog up the justice system, and destroy the thought that sometimes it isn't the company, dog, coffees fault, it's just your own damn fault.

The man isn't being forced to update his PS3. He can still play games, he just can't get online.
For Sony to offer a good online service he needs to be uniform with everyone else.

He wants his Linux? Fine, he just can't get on PSN.
PSN is an option; his accusation of being forced is a load of shit.

Tell me, if I bought a PS3 two years ago, what sort of "research" could I have done that would have told me Linux would not be available in the future? Perhaps some sort of fortune telling?

This for one. [http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/03/28/ps3-firmware-v3-21-update/]
Sonys blog always updates regarding firmware updates.

And here. [http://gamefocus.ca/?nav=new&nid=8795]
Also here. [http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=7619]

Many websites talked about this change in Firmware. A quick Google search, or visit to the PlayStation Blog is all it takes.

Also if he had PSN when he originally bought the PS3 (which I bet he did) in this case (I know you don't want to hear it) the EULA does apply.
You can't get on to PSN with Linux now, but you can still game.

While Sony didn't intentionally put the option on there so they could remove it, their blog and other websites gave warning... Not much, but there was enough to say: "Hey if you don't want this you can't get on PSN so maybe get another PS3 and use that one online and the other for Linux? Or just use a PC for Linux?"