BUT OMG THE EULA HAS NO LEGAL BEARING!spartan231490 said:
If I was a judge I would hear this trial, but I'd make the man lose and then pay for ALL of Sonys legal fees, and an image repair campaign.
Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.
- Thread starter Danpascooch
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If I was a judge I would hear this trial, but I'd make the man lose and then pay for ALL of Sonys legal fees, and an image repair campaign.
It's completely relevant, it's all about the ADVERTISED features of the PS3, it was advertised to have Linux support and it was advertised to be able to play PS3 games, now it cannot do those two things.spartan231490 said:
Good thing you aren't a judge, I imagine you would never qualify anywayFrank_Sinatra_ said:
Did you read the OP yet?
The EULA takes backseat to False Advertising laws, they cannot break the law just because they said they could in the EULA, READ THE OP FOR GOD SAKE!spartan231490 said:
There was very little tissue damage, I know this, because for a cup of coffee to have enough thermal energy to cause significant tissue damage to a human being, this is due to mass and based on physics, it would have to well over 200 degrees farenhieght, meaning it would have to no longer be liquid, because the base (water) boils at 212. Her burns may have covered a large area, but it is basically impossible for her burns to be either deep, or relatively severe. It was prolly better than many bad sunburns people recieve in tanning booths.shadow skill said:
The EULA can say just about anything, it does not mean that you retroactively agree to any action Sony takes or that said action is legal if the action itself violates law. An EULA can say that something is merely licensed, it does not however mean that this is the case. EULAs that state something is licensed have been ruled to in fact and point of law transfer ownership.spartan231490 said:
Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. - Wikipediaspartan231490 said:
Yeah, that sounds REALLY minor to me, third degree burns? Eh, suck it up lady.
Also, just because the BASE would turn to gas at that point doesn't mean the solution would, didn't you take high school chemistry and learn about freezing point depression and boiling point elevation in respect to solutions?
That was one of the most reasonable and compelling arguments I have seen for anything on The Escapist since Hope Chest got banned. So, kudos. I 100% support this lawsuit. Bait and switch is illegal (I guess this is more like retroactive bait and switch), and reasons are irrelevant. We as gamers need to have a little more freaking confidence in our legal rights and stop letting companies use piracy as an excuse to step all over us (Sony), bleed our wallets and sell us products that don't work (Ubisoft, Eidos, sometimes even Valve).
I notice somebody said people will "gladly give up their rights for a little security." Thing is, we aren't even giving up OUR rights for OUR security, we're giving up OUR right as consumers for the security of a big faceless corporation that couldn't care less about us. This is not some all-or-nothing world where refusing to let our rights be trampled is going to magically put all game companies ever out of business!
So the next time a game system promises a feature which is pulled mere weeks AFTER you buy the system, the next time a big publisher calls you a thief for buying a used game (it is your right as a consumer to resell physical copies of games), the next time Activision or whoever attempts to bully you to their side of the argument by holding games ransom by implication ("vote my way or I will go out of business"), PUT YOUR FOOT DOWN! Stop letting big corporations walk all over you!
I notice somebody said people will "gladly give up their rights for a little security." Thing is, we aren't even giving up OUR rights for OUR security, we're giving up OUR right as consumers for the security of a big faceless corporation that couldn't care less about us. This is not some all-or-nothing world where refusing to let our rights be trampled is going to magically put all game companies ever out of business!
So the next time a game system promises a feature which is pulled mere weeks AFTER you buy the system, the next time a big publisher calls you a thief for buying a used game (it is your right as a consumer to resell physical copies of games), the next time Activision or whoever attempts to bully you to their side of the argument by holding games ransom by implication ("vote my way or I will go out of business"), PUT YOUR FOOT DOWN! Stop letting big corporations walk all over you!
Jacka$$, read what i wrote. I read the op, several times, i am saying that because the EULA included a clause that allowed for the removal of the linux program, and by agreeing to said EULA you are certifying legally that you read it, THOSE PEOPLE WERE INFORMED THAT IT CUOLD HAPPEN, and therefore, there was no fullfillment of the diseption clause. This means it was legal.danpascooch said:
Any judge using this as a precedent for a more serious injustice involving the removal of features from hardware shouldn't be fit to be a judge. This is a trivial matter, one which shouldn't really be in court to begin with if you ask me.danpascooch said:
I did, I'm smarter than you take me for, insulting users will get you in trouble, and I subscribe to the train of thought that the law isn't black and white, so you use your own judgement in grey areas.danpascooch said:
Just.
Like.
This one.
You would be the worst kind of judge. You refuse to look into the grey, only black and white for you.
Must be a real hit with the ladies.
THis is a tough call because, this comes down to letting sony walk all over you, or letting the legal system walk all over you by saying that you arent responsible for reading the eula and being an aware consumer. I choose sony, at least as long as the legal system stays sound, i have a choice not to buy from sony.Samurai Goomba said:
Just because I am informed that Sony "could do something illegal" doesn't make it legal.spartan231490 said:
I will say it again for the 10,000th time, the EULA does not make false advertising ok.
I also like how you used $ instead of S's in "Jackass" as if that makes it ok.
Easy frank, I agree with you but at least maintain the facade of civility, it's relatively easy to insult someone obliquely so they dont even notice.
If you don't patch it you lose the ability to play new release PS3 games, it's basically blackmailPokedude1013 said:
I like how you ignore what i said as if that makes you right. If you were informed, according to the fcc thing on this very thread, than the deception claus of the law was not met, so there is no false advertising.danpascooch said:
Then again, even if you did read the EULA, it doesn't give Sony the right to break the lawspartan231490 said:
I hate to bring up the EULA thing since you had some very good points about it in your text wall 
but I think that is where the lawyers will go.
I think the burden of proof in this case will be about intent. If Sony did not intend this to happen then it may well fall under their EULA statutes to change their system/service at any time for any reason. If the prosecuting parties can however bring burden of proof that this was intended, as you were saying for the aspect of making more money, rather then a "legitimate response" to the security hole etc. then I think they'll have a chance. The problem is legally speaking a "legitimate response" doesn't have to be the best one. I agree that Sony could have patched that breach, but why would they when they can do this and get more cash.
The problem with your false advertising argument is that it needs to be fraud for it to be false advertising. If Sony is simply doing their part to fix a problem within the infrastructure that they did not anticipate, it's not false advertising. It's like a product recall of anything that is defective.
In other words in the old days they would have simply recalled the units with Linux and replaced them with new PS3's without that as an option. However in the digital age they don't have to do that to make good, they simply need people to uninstall Linux and stick with Sony's OS. That's not against the law.
I understand your point, I just think that legally speaking that angle won't fly. The burden of proof must belie the intent of Sony to defraud thereby making their advertising false rather then just unfortunate due to the security issues they were having.
Unless they can link the hackers to Sony... which I wouldn't put past the corporate world of cloak and dagger to do. They knew they were losing money, so they hired someone to attack the Linux side in order that they could have a good legal excuse for taking actions that would "safe guard the public" and net them significantly increased revenue. Of course proving that would be nigh impossible. I probably just sound like a conspiracy theorist.
but I think that is where the lawyers will go.I think the burden of proof in this case will be about intent. If Sony did not intend this to happen then it may well fall under their EULA statutes to change their system/service at any time for any reason. If the prosecuting parties can however bring burden of proof that this was intended, as you were saying for the aspect of making more money, rather then a "legitimate response" to the security hole etc. then I think they'll have a chance. The problem is legally speaking a "legitimate response" doesn't have to be the best one. I agree that Sony could have patched that breach, but why would they when they can do this and get more cash.
The problem with your false advertising argument is that it needs to be fraud for it to be false advertising. If Sony is simply doing their part to fix a problem within the infrastructure that they did not anticipate, it's not false advertising. It's like a product recall of anything that is defective.
In other words in the old days they would have simply recalled the units with Linux and replaced them with new PS3's without that as an option. However in the digital age they don't have to do that to make good, they simply need people to uninstall Linux and stick with Sony's OS. That's not against the law.
I understand your point, I just think that legally speaking that angle won't fly. The burden of proof must belie the intent of Sony to defraud thereby making their advertising false rather then just unfortunate due to the security issues they were having.
Unless they can link the hackers to Sony...
which I wouldn't put past the corporate world of cloak and dagger to do. They knew they were losing money, so they hired someone to attack the Linux side in order that they could have a good legal excuse for taking actions that would "safe guard the public" and net them significantly increased revenue. Of course proving that would be nigh impossible. I probably just sound like a conspiracy theorist.