Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[spartan231490]

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.

You just called me a jackass, what was it you said about civility?

Forgive me if I get upset when people accuse me of something they themselves are quilty of. and btw, it's called sarchasm.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

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.

The Air Force apparently missed it. As did pretty much everyone else. So what you're saying is I could hand you a hamburger and a big arrow pointing at the burger which says, "I AM FILLED WITH DELICIOUS MEAT AND CHEESE!" Then I could write in font size 4 letters on the bottom of the burger where nobody reads, "this burger may at some later date have the meat and cheese retroactively replaced with arsenic and toads" and that would be perfectly legal? I think it's still false advertising. It's been well proven nobody reads EULAs and they often aren't legally binding anyway.

 

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

Whatever floats your boat.
I'll be sure to sue a company over some other bullshit and make a stupid profit the next time the issue arises.
Personal responsibility, and getting over shit people. It's that simple.

You're very wrong, and shall always be so in my mind.
The law may have corrected a company, but it just destroyed humanity a little bit more.

I'd have to say I'm on your side here. Whilst I can see the legality of the situation, people who see this as a serious injustice just strike me as whiny little cunts overall. The removal of the 'Other OS' option may be illegal, but ultimately isn't a big deal.

It wasnt misleading because the EULA warned them that this could happen, I think i hear an echo.

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!

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.

Just because I am informed that Sony "could do something illegal" doesn't make it legal.

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.

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.

But it was met at time of purchase, which is the only time that matters as pertaining to false advertising.

The deception was that the PS3 had Linux functionality, it doesn't have Linux functionality anymore, it's that simple.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

You just called me a jackass, what was it you said about civility?

Forgive me if I get upset when people accuse me of something they themselves are quilty of. and btw, it's called sarchasm.

You sarcastically called me an Asshole? I must have missed that on account of that making no fucking sense.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

The Air Force apparently missed it. As did pretty much everyone else. So what you're saying is I could hand you a hamburger and a big arrow pointing at the burger which says, "I AM FILLED WITH DELICIOUS MEAT AND CHEESE!" Then I could write in font size 4 letters on the bottom of the burger where nobody reads, "this burger may at some later date have the meat and cheese retroactively replaced with arsenic and toads" and that would be perfectly legal? I think it's still false advertising. It's been well proven nobody reads EULAs and they often aren't legally binding anyway.

Wow, would you mind sticking around for a bit? I could use a hand here.

 

[Mikkaddo]

This is frankly disturbing. I knew there was something going on about the "other OS" option, but never fully understood what "other OS" was reffering to. Does anyone know of the "other OS" would have REPLACED the PS3 software and functionality all together?

As for the lawsuits, I say congrats to those fighting Sony. If you advertise the function, and then advertise it ON THE DAMN BOX, you have an obligation to deliver on that functionality. Otherwise, we might as well just bend over and let them have their way with us. As for the losing money on each system, isn't that a long standing precedent of it's own? I think that's why the console companies and game companies HATE the used game market that badly. Infact, didn't Sony originally advertise that the PS3 would have some kind of future tech bullshit that made it ipossible to play used PS3 titles? something about DRM on every disc that would mark it's software so that if the same disc was put into 2 systems the second system would never play it. Is that right? I could be remembering wrong, that might have been simply a rumor. But if it's true, it makes the current legal battle really not THAT suprising.

 

[spartan231490]

no dan, its not that simple. Because at time of purchase of the ps3 console, the only thing you are entitled to do with it, is play ps3 games, you can still do this with linux, u just cant do it online, or use the new games, neither of which was guarenteed by the original purchase. The usage of online content, and of using games which u need updates for, are guarenteed by the purchasing of the online time, which falls under the EULA.

 

[shadow skill]

SNIP

Whatever floats your boat.
I'll be sure to sue a company over some other bullshit and make a stupid profit the next time the issue arises.
Personal responsibility, and getting over shit people. It's that simple.

You're very wrong, and shall always be so in my mind.
The law may have corrected a company, but it just destroyed humanity a little bit more.

I'd have to say I'm on your side here. Whilst I can see the legality of the situation, people who see this as a serious injustice just strike me as whiny little cunts overall. The removal of the 'Other OS' option may be illegal, but ultimately isn't a big deal.

It wasnt misleading because the EULA warned them that this could happen, I think i hear an echo.

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!

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.

Just because I am informed that Sony "could do something illegal" doesn't make it legal.

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.

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.

You aren't presented with the EULA until after you buy the product. It also does not address whether or not removing the feature after the purchase has occurred in this manner is actually legal in the first place. The EULA contains provisions for banning people's accounts. That does not necessarily mean that if they ban you, that the banning is legal.

 

[Danpascooch]

no dan, its not that simple. Because at time of purchase of the ps3 console, the only thing you are entitled to do with it, is play ps3 games, you can still do this with linux, u just cant do it online, or use the new games, neither of which was guarenteed by the original purchase. The usage of online content, and of using games which u need updates for, are guarenteed by the purchasing of the online time, which falls under the EULA.

You are entitled to play PS3 games, and use Linux.

If you want to use linux now, then there will be PS3 games THAT YOUR PS3 WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PLAY!

And since the advertising promised that it WOULD be able to play PS3 games, there is your breach of guarantee. It wasn't advertised that it would be allowed to play PS3 games as long as you hand over control to Sony to remove features, or that you would able to play SOME PS3 games, it was advertised that you would be able to play PS3 games.


People PURCHASED this console, let me repeat that word: "PURCHASED!!!" that means that Sony doesn't get to tell them what they are "entitled" to do after they buy it unless they break a law or infringe on copyright.

 

[Jfswift]

Though I, for the most part agree, I don't have to worry since I don't have a PS3. And why was the Air Force using video Games anyways?

They're cheap Linux boxes, that's why. I remember reading about this feature before I bought mine.

 

[spartan231490]

If Mcdonald's (which is a bigger company than Sony) can lose a lawsuit involving a cup of hot coffee, then Sony is in no way immune to lawsuits or the law.

McD did not lose the lawsuit. At first, sure, they did. But they appealed it and the retard lady who sued them had to pay it all back and more.

Umm no. They reduced her reward and then MCd's settled with her. Furthermore you have to be naive to think that when someone orders hot coffee they expect it to be hot enough to cause significant tissue damage should they actually try to drink it let alone accidentally spill it on themselves.

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.

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. - Wikipedia

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?

a few degrees diference isn't going to matter, and i wouldn't necessarily believe wiki. On a side note, does anyone know at what temperature third degree burns occur at, (cellular temperature not external temp.)

 

[rddj623]

For the Record I think it sucks that Sony doesn't just patch the dang breach in security. That's a multinational corporation for you though. Only caring about the bottom line.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

You aren't presented with the EULA until after you buy the product. It also does not address whether or not removing the feature after the purchase has occurred in this manner is actually legal in the first place. The EULA contains provisions for banning people's accounts. That does not necessarily mean that if they ban you, that the banning is legal.

That is a really, REALLY good point. It says ON THE BOX that the system can run Linux, right? Then you BUY IT, THEN AFTER THAT you can see the little clause hiding in the EULA that talks about how Linux functionality MIGHT be removed in the future.

And then it is. And you (the Air Force) spent a crapload of money on the product that doesn't do the only thing you wanted it for.

Forget lawyers, if I were the Air Force I'd fly fighter jets in formation over Sony USA's headquarters 24/7 until they agreed to put Linux back in there. Maybe drop some dummy bombs.

 

[spartan231490]

no dan, its not that simple. Because at time of purchase of the ps3 console, the only thing you are entitled to do with it, is play ps3 games, you can still do this with linux, u just cant do it online, or use the new games, neither of which was guarenteed by the original purchase. The usage of online content, and of using games which u need updates for, are guarenteed by the purchasing of the online time, which falls under the EULA.

You are entitled to play PS3 games, and use Linux.

If you want to use linux now, then there will be PS3 games THAT YOUR PS3 WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PLAY!

And since the advertising promised that it WOULD be able to play PS3 games, there is your breach of guarantee. It wasn't advertised that it would be allowed to play PS3 games as long as you hand over control to Sony to remove features, or that you would able to play SOME PS3 games, it was advertised that you would be able to play PS3 games.


People PURCHASED this console, let me repeat that word: "PURCHASED!!!" that means that Sony doesn't get to tell them what they are "entitled" to do after they buy it unless they break a law or infringe on copyright.

It can still play ps3 games, just not the ones which were released after, and it is known that they wont play on a linux system, no deception.

 

[spartan231490]

Your entire argument isn't valid since the update that removes the other OS option is entirely optional and you dot have to do it. Yes you loose the ability to play online but playing online isn't a right that you get simply by owning the console.

The lawsuits are completely without merit and the only reason these lawsuits even exist is because the US law system is completely fucked and sue happy. This would never occur in any reasonable country.

You don't only lose playing online, you lose the ability to play any PS3 games released from that point onward, I clearly made that point in the OP

But thats not actually true at all. I didn't update my console for nearly a month after the patch simply because i dont play online much and didn't even know about the patch. I was still able to play new games and watch blue-rays. The reason for this is because only about 70% of ps3s are online. Sony cant release an online patch that disables consoles from playing games if you don't have it. In the future they might include the patch on future ps3 games like the 360 does but then again they may not.

Even if it does require the patch in the future this is not a battle that is worth fighting over. Fighting a battle like this and they will loose i have no doubt about it will only hurt us if their is a battle actually worth fighting for in the future. Sony removing an option due to security issues is actually well within their rights and as much as you argue about false advertising that's not what its going to be about.

When a game like halo 2 advertises online multiplayer and that feature is removed can you now sue Microsoft? No of course you cant so why the fuck would you try to sue sony unless your a dumbass American who is trying to look for a quick buck and instead should get a huge bill from Sony lawyers.

Thank you, well said.

 

[Danpascooch]

If Mcdonald's (which is a bigger company than Sony) can lose a lawsuit involving a cup of hot coffee, then Sony is in no way immune to lawsuits or the law.

McD did not lose the lawsuit. At first, sure, they did. But they appealed it and the retard lady who sued them had to pay it all back and more.

Umm no. They reduced her reward and then MCd's settled with her. Furthermore you have to be naive to think that when someone orders hot coffee they expect it to be hot enough to cause significant tissue damage should they actually try to drink it let alone accidentally spill it on themselves.

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.

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. - Wikipedia

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?

a few degrees diference isn't going to matter, and i wouldn't necessarily believe wiki. On a side note, does anyone know at what temperature third degree burns occur at, (cellular temperature not external temp.)

Does it matter what temperature they occur at? Are you going to tell me that without examining the woman, you know better than the hospital that checked her out?

Also, the coffee could have been stored under pressure (preventing boiling) and been boiling in the cup (in the process of becoming gas) when she spilled it.

Point is, the third degree burns DID happen whether you want to say it's impossible or not.

Also, Boiling point elevation in solutions can be a hell of a lot more than a "few degrees" do you know how hard it is to freeze water with salt dissolved in it? That's an example of how a solution can drastically change freezing and boiling points, otherwise we wouldn't bother salting the paths to our houses in the winter.

 

[Danpascooch]

Your entire argument isn't valid since the update that removes the other OS option is entirely optional and you dot have to do it. Yes you loose the ability to play online but playing online isn't a right that you get simply by owning the console.

The lawsuits are completely without merit and the only reason these lawsuits even exist is because the US law system is completely fucked and sue happy. This would never occur in any reasonable country.

You don't only lose playing online, you lose the ability to play any PS3 games released from that point onward, I clearly made that point in the OP

But thats not actually true at all. I didn't update my console for nearly a month after the patch simply because i dont play online much and didn't even know about the patch. I was still able to play new games and watch blue-rays. The reason for this is because only about 70% of ps3s are online. Sony cant release an online patch that disables consoles from playing games if you don't have it. In the future they might include the patch on future ps3 games like the 360 does but then again they may not.

Even if it does require the patch in the future this is not a battle that is worth fighting over. Fighting a battle like this and they will loose i have no doubt about it will only hurt us if their is a battle actually worth fighting for in the future. Sony removing an option due to security issues is actually well within their rights and as much as you argue about false advertising that's not what its going to be about.

When a game like halo 2 advertises online multiplayer and that feature is removed can you now sue Microsoft? No of course you cant so why the fuck would you try to sue sony unless your a dumbass American who is trying to look for a quick buck and instead should get a huge bill from Sony lawyers.

Actually, new release Sony games require certain firmware versions, and since this is a FIRMWARE UPDATE, it will exclude you from future released, so you're wrong.

Also, it's different than just ending online support, because they are making you choose between two advertised HARDWARE features, not online features (hardware feature 1: Linux Support HF2: Ability to play future games)

If it worked for you than you weren't playing games new enough to require new firmware, but those games will come.

As I said in the OP, it's not about whining or money, it's about setting precedent

I take affront to the term "dumbass American" it's nationalistic branding, of the same sort as racism (although not based on ethnicity) I will not tolerate it on this thread, and you can expect to be reported.

 

[Danpascooch]

Your entire argument isn't valid since the update that removes the other OS option is entirely optional and you dot have to do it. Yes you loose the ability to play online but playing online isn't a right that you get simply by owning the console.

The lawsuits are completely without merit and the only reason these lawsuits even exist is because the US law system is completely fucked and sue happy. This would never occur in any reasonable country.

You don't only lose playing online, you lose the ability to play any PS3 games released from that point onward, I clearly made that point in the OP

But thats not actually true at all. I didn't update my console for nearly a month after the patch simply because i dont play online much and didn't even know about the patch. I was still able to play new games and watch blue-rays. The reason for this is because only about 70% of ps3s are online. Sony cant release an online patch that disables consoles from playing games if you don't have it. In the future they might include the patch on future ps3 games like the 360 does but then again they may not.

Even if it does require the patch in the future this is not a battle that is worth fighting over. Fighting a battle like this and they will loose i have no doubt about it will only hurt us if their is a battle actually worth fighting for in the future. Sony removing an option due to security issues is actually well within their rights and as much as you argue about false advertising that's not what its going to be about.

When a game like halo 2 advertises online multiplayer and that feature is removed can you now sue Microsoft? No of course you cant so why the fuck would you try to sue sony unless your a dumbass American who is trying to look for a quick buck and instead should get a huge bill from Sony lawyers.

Thank you, well said.

Well said? Having someone agree with you doesn't mean it's well said, not only was this blatantly wrong, but it was violently nationalistically prejudiced against Americans, if you support this post of his, then I realize my arguments are futile, because you'll agree to anything if it supports your point, no matter how stupid, prejudiced, or just flat out wrong it is.

If you actually care to see why he's wrong instead of simply absorbing it and giving yourself a false sense of vindication, read my quoted response to his post.

 

[spartan231490]

sea water freezes at 28 degrees farenheit, 4 degrees cooler, a little less than 4 degrees actually. Huge difference there. also, yes it matters what temp they occur at because both the coffee and the human body are mostly water, which means that for every degree of temperature that each gram of her body increased, the coffee had to have a decreas of one degree in one gram. meaning that the temperature change would have been about halfway between the the coffee's temp and her body temp, so about 150-160 degrees farenheit, and that is only an equal mass. Now, since the coffe would have spread out, splashed ect, that temp difference, would have been very shallow, and so would the burn. The coffee would have cooled down before the heat got very deep, meaning that most of the damage would have been to her skin. On a side note, I saw someone submerge, completely, both hands in 130 degree water, adn his hands looked red for 10 minutes. I myself washed dishes in the same water, once gettting used to it, and was not burned. So, i dont believe your reference that she suffered 3rd degree burns, the cup of coffee could not have transfered enough energy into her body to cause that, unless she submerged a small part of her body in it. Also, if the coffee was hot enough to cause a 3rd degree burn from a spill, dont u think that the styrofoam/plastic cup would have melted.