Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Danpascooch]

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.

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 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.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.

Right, but this went way above and beyond a reasonable fixing of security, a reasonable fix would be a patch that fixes the vulnerability in the system, not a patch that removes a major feature, and if you don't comply, prohibits you from playing future PS3 games.

 

[LordZ]

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.

Deciding to no longer support a product (Halo 2) is different from removing features from a product you still sell and support. It's not even a valid comparison.

Tell me, do you think Sony would be happy if Microsoft suddenly patched out all support for Bluray in Windows or specifically patched out compatibility with all Sony products? After all, supporting Sony products is just a feature. There's no way Sony should have any problem with this. Microsoft gets sued all the time over Windows features. There's no reason Sony should be immune to this.

Sure, we all get tired of people suing each other over every thing under the sun but saying that people should stop without giving them a valid alternative is like crying over how the world is unfair. It accomplishes nothing.

 

[rddj623]

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"

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.

The problem is proving that in the courts. There are lots of things that legally shouldn't happen but do anyways. Take the case where a burglar broke his leg during a robbery and sued the homeowner and won. Legally that shit should have no standing but it still happened. I agree with you completely that they should just fix the hole in security with a patch but I don't think they'll lose these lawsuits about it.

 

[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.

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.

Read this:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I wish I saw a single valid reason of WHY this was a frivolous lawsuit

Deciding to no longer support a product (Halo 2) is different from removing features from a product you still sell and support. It's not even a valid comparison.

Tell me, do you think Sony would be happy if Microsoft suddenly patched out all support for Bluray in Windows or specifically patched out compatibility with all Sony products? After all, supporting Sony products is just a feature. There's no way Sony should have any problem with this. Microsoft gets sued all the time over Windows features. There's no reason Sony should be immune to this.

Sure, we all get tired of people suing each other over every thing under the sun but saying that people should stop without giving them a valid alternative is like crying over how the world is unfair. It accomplishes nothing.

I was going to shut down your analogy, but this guy did it for me, it's nice when logical people work together.

I thought you were done with this thread?

 

[Mikkaddo]

..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.

Ahh, well I meant the information that was going around before system was on sale saying that if you played ANY disc one time on the PS3 in your house, that DISC would be useless on any other PS3, an attempt to remove used games (and likely) the rental of games as well. I know about the DRM for "VIP" content, and that has enough people pissed with situations such as Bioshock 2 where all discs have it, but you can only "unlock" the content if you shell out the $10 or however much it is.

 

[Danpascooch]

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"

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.

The problem is proving that in the courts. There are lots of things that legally shouldn't happen but do anyways. Take the case where a burglar broke his leg during a robbery and sued the homeowner and won. Legally that shit should have no standing but it still happened. I agree with you completely that they should just fix the hole in security with a patch but I don't think they'll lose these lawsuits about it.

Define "legally shouldn't happen" for me, because "legally shouldn't happen" sounds like a synonym to "illegal" to me.

In which case you just agreed with my entire argument.

Remember, I never said they WOULD win, just that they SHOULD, and that what Sony did was illegal.

 

[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.

Only an idiot decides that he will maintain his position no matter WHAT happens.

I feel as though what Sony did was illegal, but if someone proves me otherwise, I'm not going to ignore that! How does correcting a company's illegal action "destroy humanity" you make no sense!

 

[rddj623]

Right, but this went way above and beyond a reasonable fixing of security, a reasonable fix would be a patch that fixes the vulnerability in the system, not a patch that removes a major feature, and if you don't comply, prohibits you from playing future PS3 games.

Ethically I agree with you completely, I just don't know if legally it'll make a difference. I think they can probably prove within technical legality that it was a "reasonable fix" not the best one but one of reasonable logic. That's what they pay their lawyers for, to build the case in just the right way as to be in the clear. Make it gray it's easier to win. I don't like that they'll probably win, I just think they probably will.

 

[LordZ]

Define "legally shouldn't happen" for me, because "legally shouldn't happen" sounds like a synonym to "illegal" to me.

In which case you just agreed with my entire argument.

Remember, I never said they WOULD win, just that they SHOULD, and that what Sony did was illegal.

I'm fairly certain Sony will settle it out of court for a paltry sum and the people who want Other OS support will remain screwed until a custom firmware comes out. It's just a sad upside down world where pirates are ones bringing about justice and corporations are the criminals.

 

[Danpascooch]

Right, but this went way above and beyond a reasonable fixing of security, a reasonable fix would be a patch that fixes the vulnerability in the system, not a patch that removes a major feature, and if you don't comply, prohibits you from playing future PS3 games.

Ethically I agree with you completely, I just don't know if legally it'll make a difference. I think they can probably prove within technical legality that it was a "reasonable fix" not the best one but one of reasonable logic. That's what they pay their lawyers for, to build the case in just the right way as to be in the clear. Make it gray it's easier to win. I don't like that they'll probably win, I just think they probably will.

I don't know, it seems to me that when you remove a feature that was advertised, you're liable, even if it was a security risk, they could have offered a refund to people who bought the PS3 when that feature was advertised, if removing the feature was THAT necessary.

 

[Danpascooch]

Define "legally shouldn't happen" for me, because "legally shouldn't happen" sounds like a synonym to "illegal" to me.

In which case you just agreed with my entire argument.

Remember, I never said they WOULD win, just that they SHOULD, and that what Sony did was illegal.

I'm fairly certain Sony will settle it out of court for a paltry sum and the people who want Other OS support will remain screwed until a custom firmware comes out. It's just a sad upside down world where pirates are ones bringing about justice and corporations are the criminals.

I agree this is what will probably happen, but at least then companies will know that consumers won't just tolerate this sort of crap.

 

[rddj623]

Define "legally shouldn't happen" for me, because "legally shouldn't happen" sounds like a synonym to "illegal" to me.

In which case you just agreed with my entire argument.

Remember, I never said they WOULD win, just that they SHOULD, and that what Sony did was illegal.

I guess I've been doing a poor job of saying that I agree with you on the should part. I just don't think they will.

 

[Danpascooch]

Define "legally shouldn't happen" for me, because "legally shouldn't happen" sounds like a synonym to "illegal" to me.

In which case you just agreed with my entire argument.

Remember, I never said they WOULD win, just that they SHOULD, and that what Sony did was illegal.

I guess I've been doing a poor job of saying that I agree with you on the should part. I just don't think they will.

My prediction is a settlement, which won't get Linux back on the PS3, but should at least show companies that consumers won't take crap like this sitting down.

 

[rddj623]

I don't know, it seems to me that when you remove a feature that was advertised, you're liable, even if it was a security risk, they could have offered a refund to people who bought the PS3 when that feature was advertised, if removing the feature was THAT necessary.

Again I agree completely but they probably had a cost analysis done and figured that this would be less money and so they went with the less money option rather then the ethically right option.

I'm fairly certain Sony will settle it out of court for a paltry sum and the people who want Other OS support will remain screwed until a custom firmware comes out. It's just a sad upside down world where pirates are ones bringing about justice and corporations are the criminals.

Agreed it rings too true of Robin Hood stories when open source programmers who develop "fixes" to corporate man handling are branded pirates while the the corporations take and take.

 

[Grey_Focks]

citizen snips

Yea, I have nothing to really add to this discussion, except that you are right, everyone saying Sony should win is wrong, and the people siding with Sony in this thing are the worst kinds of fanboys there are. Getting butthurt about a game no longer being exclusive is one kind of idiocy, but trying to justify the company breaking the law and SCREWING THE CUSTOMERS is just...blech.

 

[rddj623]

My prediction is a settlement, which won't get Linux back on the PS3, but should at least show companies that consumers won't take crap like this sitting down.

I just hope the settlement turns out to be more money then their cost analysis said, so that it does actually make an impact rather then just fit in with their plan from the get go.

 

[Danpascooch]

My prediction is a settlement, which won't get Linux back on the PS3, but should at least show companies that consumers won't take crap like this sitting down.

I just hope the settlement turns out to be more money then their cost analysis said, so that it does actually make an impact rather then just fit in with their plan from the get go.

I know, but either way, their cost analysis isn't public, and the fear of a lawsuit can be a strong motivator for companies to not try something like this.

 

[rddj623]

Snippity snip

Agreed. Unfortunately I think Sony will win, via settlement that was within their whole cost analysis to begin with. :\ *le sigh* when did doing right by your customers go out of style in favor of greed?

 

[Danpascooch]

Whew, it's been a hell of a ride so far, but since spartan231490 FINALLY left, things seem to be dying down, maybe I can take a break before the next onslaught of people who didn't read the OP.