Games go Gold (otherwise known as when they start making the discs) months before the release date. Simple put, it's going to be a couple of months before games that require this new firmware revision will actually be on the shelves.666Chaos said:
Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.
- Thread starter Danpascooch
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I didn't say sea water, I said a salt/water solution, which would have a much higher salt content, although all of this is IRRELEVANT because the doctors at the hospital declared that she had third degree burns, and they know a hell of a lot better than both you and me.spartan231490 said:
If it was just a four degree difference, salt wouldn't melt snow so effectively, I'd like to see where you heard that seawater freezes just 4 degrees colder.
And no, it wouldn't melt the cup, you can boil water in a styrofoam cup just fine, I said it gave her THIRD DEGREE BURNS (which is a fact, look it up) I didn't say it BURNED THROUGH HER CAR for god sake!
has it occured to you, that i agree with what he said because i think he is right. he says he has a ps3 and was able to play new games. Irrelevant of that, he also has a point in that any payments they have to make, will just cause a temporary price increase that will not effect them, only us, lawsuits are a notoriously bad way to punish corporations because they pass the losses on to thier customers, not thier investors. That aside, i was mostly refering to his last paragraph, perhaps i should have specified.danpascooch said:
In that case, I'll just happily write my own patch that allows me to play online without PSN. Oh wait, I'm not allowed to do that but they're allowed to remove any feature they want since I have to use PSN to go online? It's called extortion. They force you to choose between two sets of features with no compensation for either loss.666Chaos said:
Nice how you think only "dumbass" Americans are pissed off about this. I bet the people in your country are just so superior right? Piss off asshole.
Read this:spartan231490 said:
He's wrong, it's that simple, I have a link in the OP (under the last edit) that proves it, I gave the citation and did all of the research for you, so if you want to refute me, the least you could do is GLANCE at the proof I provided instead of believing some random nationalistic bigot who happened to agree with you.CustomMagnum said:
No company likes to be the target of a lawsuit, and especially not to lose them, it's the best form of punishment we have.
No, wouldn't happen. The game-os is apparently using some of the same, or similar, interfaces the linux/otheros boot does. I.e., the memory-controller, IO, general hardware interfaces in other words.. But writing a new game-os, essentially, even if you had all the documentation you needed, that wouldn't happen. It's not that it would be difficult or take a lot of time, it's just that it's not possible. I.e., you could imagine running a different linux boot on a Mac. But creating a new MacOS just from that..?Mikkaddo said:
Same reason why the hack is going nowhere - there's just not enough info on the application level for the game-os. And we don't know enough about the hardware interfaces either, to even be remotely capable of writing new modules. It'd be writing the logic for the memory-controller by feel and intuition or something. Not going to happen.
This isn't random either. It's by design. And it was successful. You have.. had limited access to an alternative boot, to, say, play around with, or actually use the box as a media-center.. or a real computer.. while we were waiting for Sony to implement things into their software..
..well, they essentially have this with the one-time activation codes for "VIP" or "premium" content. An "acceptable" abuse of the online distribution model we're seeing more of lately.
---
Anyway - great thread, danpascooch. Spelling out the relevant point about how this - if Sony gets away with it - means that removing advertised features by electronic update, for various unspecific reasons, suddenly becomes easier. Won't be long before we see updates for older iPhones, so that they will be gimped a month after the new phone hits the market, I guess..
a fact you sourced from wiki. Sorry, but I wont believe that over my own, university earned, knowledge of physics. However, I wasnt aware that u could boil water in a styrofoam cup, i just know that if you fill one full of water and leave it in the sun in the summer, it will deform from heat. that said, I learned that salt is forced out of a solution in water when it freezes at about 28 degrees in college chemistry. I believe he was referring to saltwater, but the conclusion he drew, and proved with lab experiments, is that salt does very little to melt ice at under 28 degrees farenheit.danpascooch said:
I just got an update to my ITouch that removed capability for a $120 logitec dock I own, I am PISSED.nipsen said:
It's important that we don't let companies get away with things like that, which is why I support this lawsuit.
If you leave it in the sun for 15 seconds it will deform? Because that's all the time it takes to get poured, handed to the lady, and spilled.spartan231490 said:
Wikipedia may not be a trustworthy site, but they had a citation listed for that case, if you follow that, it WILL lead you to trustworthy sites that confirm that she had 3rd degree burns.
It's not up for debate, she had third degree burns according to qualified medical professionals, you can argue with me all you want, but if you really went to college for physics, you should know that your arguments can't CHANGE THE FREAKING PAST! She had third degree burns, look it up.
Despite your arguments that boiling point elevation is irrelevant (it's not) what about pressure? Go to Wikipedia and follow the citation to a site you consider trustworthy, I believe the coffee was stored under pressure before poured.
Regardless, she had third degree burns, as proven by doctors, and all the bitching in the world won't change that fact.
I have read the OP, I will say that I have always supporting these lawsuits for most of the reasons stated.
One thing I believe was omitted though is that the EULA is not a binding contract to begin with. I am increasingly concerned by legal precedents that make it into one, and I believe this is one of the places where it needs to be stopped and counter-precedent established.
Simply put you do not receive a EULA until after you pay money for a product when it comes to video games and most hardware, if you take the product home and try and play it, the game typically makes you "click off" on a multi-page agreement before playing. If you don't agree you can't use the product you already paid money for. What's more you might not even be able to return it for the full value if you disagree with the EULA.
It's like any other business, you sign the contract BEFORE money changes hands. You can't take someone's money, say "sign this contract", and then grab back the product you stole (or wreck it so they can't use it) and call that legal.
For a EULA to be binding, the way things are *SUPPOSED* to work is that you would have to sign off on it before you completed your purchuse. Meaning that before you paid the retailer they would hand you paperwork and have you sign it, before they took your money.
There are plenty of pro-EULA people that will point to bad precedents by people (including Judges) who didn't understand the relevent laws. Not to mention far more people than we'd like to admit, in all kinds of businesses, that have a vested interest in forcing contracts after a purchuse.
This is a coin flip, but unless Sony could prove that these people agreed to the terms before they paid for the product (and all the terms have to be printed, you can't just say "refer to form XYZ" without having it availible), I'd argue that any defense based on a EULA is effectively toothless, at least within the US.
Even beyond all of this, understand that Sony sold people a Linux compadible console, they are effectively removing that compadibility and cheating the people who purchused it for that reason. That's the bottom line. I also do not for a second think that they could not have plugged this security leak in another way.
-
Oh and two other things:
#1: Corperations lose in court all the time, however I do not think Mcdonalds is a bigger corperation than Sony. Simply put Sony has it's fingers into a ton of differant pies all over the world, and even owns it's own movie and music studios, not to mention a massive web of other corperations that they own or have their fingers solidly into.
Basically, I think Sony is a tougher nut to crack than Mcdonalds, but that is not to say it can't be done.
#2: I don't for a second believe either Sony or Microsoft when they claim that they sell their hardware at a loss. Especially when you consider multiple generations of the same hardware.
Even if it was true that they were taking a loss on consoles to begin with, as time went on and things became cheaper (along with the realities of mass production) this would not have remained the case.
Truthfully, given some of Sony's statements over the years, and knowing a bit about corperate doublespeak and deception (having worked for some masters). A company can make a case for it both losing money, and making monster profits, entirely based on how they want to look at things. Don't meet your projected profit margin after expenses? That can be considered a loss, since real profit is based on "growth" for example.
In Sony's case I will point out that the PS-3 shortage was caused by a lack of the laser systems that go into the PS-3 to play blue ray discs. This was because at the time of the PS-3's release, there was a massive battle between HD and Blu Ray for the next gen video format. Sony was taking those lasers and putting them into straight Blu Ray players, and then selling the players for money money than the PS-3 which was also a player. The reality being that warrented or not there is a predjudice against video games, and a lot of sheeple are going to go and buy a player because it's a video player, rather than a game deck even if they just watch discs on it. By their logic, they could argue that every PS-3 was a "loss" due to the fact that they could have sold another player with the components. A logic based not on actual "we're losing money", but on the efficiency with which the money is being used at the time.
Call me a cynic, but basically I've run into enough stuff like this where I call "BS" when a company like Sony, well known for it's greed, makes a claim like this.
One thing I believe was omitted though is that the EULA is not a binding contract to begin with. I am increasingly concerned by legal precedents that make it into one, and I believe this is one of the places where it needs to be stopped and counter-precedent established.
Simply put you do not receive a EULA until after you pay money for a product when it comes to video games and most hardware, if you take the product home and try and play it, the game typically makes you "click off" on a multi-page agreement before playing. If you don't agree you can't use the product you already paid money for. What's more you might not even be able to return it for the full value if you disagree with the EULA.
It's like any other business, you sign the contract BEFORE money changes hands. You can't take someone's money, say "sign this contract", and then grab back the product you stole (or wreck it so they can't use it) and call that legal.
For a EULA to be binding, the way things are *SUPPOSED* to work is that you would have to sign off on it before you completed your purchuse. Meaning that before you paid the retailer they would hand you paperwork and have you sign it, before they took your money.
There are plenty of pro-EULA people that will point to bad precedents by people (including Judges) who didn't understand the relevent laws. Not to mention far more people than we'd like to admit, in all kinds of businesses, that have a vested interest in forcing contracts after a purchuse.
This is a coin flip, but unless Sony could prove that these people agreed to the terms before they paid for the product (and all the terms have to be printed, you can't just say "refer to form XYZ" without having it availible), I'd argue that any defense based on a EULA is effectively toothless, at least within the US.
Even beyond all of this, understand that Sony sold people a Linux compadible console, they are effectively removing that compadibility and cheating the people who purchused it for that reason. That's the bottom line. I also do not for a second think that they could not have plugged this security leak in another way.
-
Oh and two other things:
#1: Corperations lose in court all the time, however I do not think Mcdonalds is a bigger corperation than Sony. Simply put Sony has it's fingers into a ton of differant pies all over the world, and even owns it's own movie and music studios, not to mention a massive web of other corperations that they own or have their fingers solidly into.
Basically, I think Sony is a tougher nut to crack than Mcdonalds, but that is not to say it can't be done.
#2: I don't for a second believe either Sony or Microsoft when they claim that they sell their hardware at a loss. Especially when you consider multiple generations of the same hardware.
Even if it was true that they were taking a loss on consoles to begin with, as time went on and things became cheaper (along with the realities of mass production) this would not have remained the case.
Truthfully, given some of Sony's statements over the years, and knowing a bit about corperate doublespeak and deception (having worked for some masters). A company can make a case for it both losing money, and making monster profits, entirely based on how they want to look at things. Don't meet your projected profit margin after expenses? That can be considered a loss, since real profit is based on "growth" for example.
In Sony's case I will point out that the PS-3 shortage was caused by a lack of the laser systems that go into the PS-3 to play blue ray discs. This was because at the time of the PS-3's release, there was a massive battle between HD and Blu Ray for the next gen video format. Sony was taking those lasers and putting them into straight Blu Ray players, and then selling the players for money money than the PS-3 which was also a player. The reality being that warrented or not there is a predjudice against video games, and a lot of sheeple are going to go and buy a player because it's a video player, rather than a game deck even if they just watch discs on it. By their logic, they could argue that every PS-3 was a "loss" due to the fact that they could have sold another player with the components. A logic based not on actual "we're losing money", but on the efficiency with which the money is being used at the time.
Call me a cynic, but basically I've run into enough stuff like this where I call "BS" when a company like Sony, well known for it's greed, makes a claim like this.
That wasn't on my screen when i posted, so back off. Also, i said that I was mainly referring to the last paragraph, which mentions halo 2, which nobody sued over. Also, in other posts I have already pointed out my reasons for believing that it was perfectly legal even if they do remove new game functionality from linux systems, so i dont really care. Also, calling him a nationalist bigot, doesnt make his points wrong by default(even a blind squirrel and all that). That said, i live in america, and these bs lawsuits are doing exactly what he said they are, they are destroying the american legal system, i'll even give you an example. There was a family in montanna or minnisota, who had a mentally handicapped child. Not satisfied with having thier local public school spoon feed him a high school diploma with special classes, they decided that it was the schools responsibility, to fly the kid to a very special school just for the mentally handicapped in New York. When the school said no, the family sued, and won the lawsuit in the national supreme court. I don't remember the name of the website i found this on, it was 2 years ago for a participation in government class. The website was a list of supreme court cases, and was given to us by our teacher. This is the danger of "frivilous lawsuits" as they are called. And if any one of these lawsuits wins, I intend to nominate them for a stella award.danpascooch said:
I'm officially done arguing. It said right in the fcc quote that the parties had to be decieved for it to be false advertising. With the user agreement(once again going from xbox live knowledge but with that u agree before paying for the online time) it is definitely reasonable to assume that the user should have been aware that thier linux could be taken from online support. Once again, there is nothing that guarentees when you a buy a console that new games will continue to be made for it, so the inability to play new games, which u are warned about, doesnt count.
Finally, sony did nothing illegal; should offer a free disk which installs the supported OS, but doesnt have to; and will lose the lawsuits because this is the age of frivilous lawsuits; these frivilous lawsuits degrade the very concepts of justice and responsibility, as well as the justice system; and any losses that sony suffers will translate into higher prices meaning that in the long run, the consumers will pay for this, not the investors (this is exactly what happened with tobacco lawsuits, they just jacked up prices and were completely recovered after a disturbingly short period of time); And we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Please dont quote me, I am done arguing and I dont want my inbox filled with messages from a thread I have no point in posting on any further.
Finally, sony did nothing illegal; should offer a free disk which installs the supported OS, but doesnt have to; and will lose the lawsuits because this is the age of frivilous lawsuits; these frivilous lawsuits degrade the very concepts of justice and responsibility, as well as the justice system; and any losses that sony suffers will translate into higher prices meaning that in the long run, the consumers will pay for this, not the investors (this is exactly what happened with tobacco lawsuits, they just jacked up prices and were completely recovered after a disturbingly short period of time); And we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Please dont quote me, I am done arguing and I dont want my inbox filled with messages from a thread I have no point in posting on any further.
But the product remains defective after the "recall". They should at least offer a refund to anyone who bought a PS3 before it ceased to be advertised on the box as supporting other OS and who wanted to use other OS and PSN. And that is all the lawsuit is asking for.rddj623 said:
If a car is recalled for having a defective part, they don't just remove that part and give the car back without offering a refund as an alternative. They replace the part with one that is fixed.
I live in America too, and these "frivolous lawsuits" are one of the main things that keep companies in check. They are as much a part of the legal system as anything else. Don't say "here is an example of a frivolous lawsuit, since this one is frivolous, the PS3 one must be frivolous too" because that's a load of shit.spartan231490 said:
I told you why it was deception, but if you don't want to argue anymore, that's fine by me.spartan231490 said:
I understand the need to maintain the infrastructure, but not allowing people who don't remove the feature to play new PS3 games from this point on (which require the latest firmware) is far above and beyond simply "fixing a security gap"rddj623 said:I hate to bring up the EULA thing since you had some very good points about it in your text wallbut 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...
The EULA still doesn't allow them to force you to pick between two advertised functions, even if it says they reserve the right to do that, they legally don't.
I agree that's what they should do. But like I was saying the problem was the "security breach" and legally they probably don't have to provide a refund so long as they are able to fix the breach in security. That is where it depends on what the EULA states.oktalist said:
Not that it matters, but it was not my intention to imply that just because one is frivilouse, another must be. It was my intent to point out the dangers of where frivilous lawsuits lead, because it is my posted and argued opinion that this case is a frivilous lawsuit.danpascooch said: