Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[JEBWrench]

I don't understand the question.

An unconscionable contract is one that someone of a sound mind would not agree to.

Ergo, to be unconscionable, the terms would have to be such that, if they were presented with them before purchase, the average person would outright refuse.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

SNIP

You constantly insulting me makes you sound more and more irritating.

When I buy bread at the store I don't know if it'll go bad before I eat all of it, and I don't know if a mouse will get into my kitchen and eat it.
If those things happen I don't go complaining to the store about them.

When my phone needs a software update and I looses non essential features but it still performs its primary task I don't go complaining to the phone company.

If all you're after is what is and isn't legal then every single person in the world should be serving up to 50 years in jail.

We need to let things slide so the system can run. Sony removing this isn't a big deal. This man is bitching to make a quick dollar.

I will not sympathize with him unless he was doing research with it.

Legal? Probably not.
Pointless Lawsuit? Very much so.

If the guy wants Linux so badly he can either get another PS3 or get a PC. He wants an easy dollar, so stop supporting people who sue for easy money.
You are helping destroy the justice system and personal responsibility.

Good day to you sir.

 

[Plurralbles]

people are fucking retarded. The OP is fucking right and Sony needs to give back the capability on consoles that they advertised had it.

THE GUY BRINGING THE SUIT AGAINST SONY IS IRRELEVANT. jUST BECUASE YOU DON'T LIKE HIM DOESN'T MAKE HIS POINT INVALID!

 

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

You constantly insulting me makes you sound more and more irritating.

When I buy bread at the store I don't know if it'll go bad before I eat all of it, and I don't know if a mouse will get into my kitchen and eat it.
If those things happen I don't go complaining to the store about them.

When my phone needs a software update and I looses non essential features but it still performs its primary task I don't go complaining to the phone company.

If all you're after is what is and isn't legal then every single person in the world should be serving up to 50 years in jail.

We need to let things slide so the system can run. Sony removing this isn't a big deal. This man is bitching to make a quick dollar.

I will not sympathize with him unless he was doing research with it.

Legal? Probably not.
Pointless Lawsuit? Very much so.

If the guy wants Linux so badly he can either get another PS3 or get a PC. He wants an easy dollar, so stop supporting people who sue for easy money.
You are helping destroy the justice system and personal responsibility.

Good day to you sir.

My argument is that it's not legal, which you just admitted it probably isn't so this argument is over.

You really love playing devils advocate don't you?

The difference between you and me is I think people should stand up for themselves, correct injustice, and try to improve our society, while you seems to think they should give up and let more powerful entities do whatever they want.

If our country was made up of people of your mentality, it would be a horribly brutal dictatorship by whoever had the most power, and everyone would just bow down to him.

If you want to let companies work you over and submit to them like some sort of broken down servant, that's fine, but I'll be here pointing out illegal practices and actually trying to IMPROVE the system of accountability.

 

[Danpascooch]

people are fucking retarded. The OP is fucking right and Sony needs to give back the capability on consoles that they advertised had it.

THE GUY BRINGING THE SUIT AGAINST SONY IS IRRELEVANT. jUST BECUASE YOU DON'T LIKE HIM DOESN'T MAKE HIS POINT INVALID!

THANK YOU!

However, I feel it is futile, no matter how many times I make that point, people seem to only listen to the points that support their argument.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

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.

 

[Plurralbles]

people are fucking retarded. The OP is fucking right and Sony needs to give back the capability on consoles that they advertised had it.

THE GUY BRINGING THE SUIT AGAINST SONY IS IRRELEVANT. jUST BECUASE YOU DON'T LIKE HIM DOESN'T MAKE HIS POINT INVALID!

THANK YOU!

However, I feel it is futile, no matter how many times I make that point, people seem to only listen to the points that support their argument.

well... That's human nature.

Ohwell. people will gladly give up their rights for a little security, though they deserve neither.

 

[razormint21]

I would have to agree with this. I can only give a simple point though. Inasmuch as the "Other Os" option is not the primary purpose of a PS3, it is mentioned and is advertised as a feature. I can sympathize with the USAFs case. And i think everyone who owns this console should. This is not about you losing something you probably won't use and be at loss, it'a about losing something you paid for. And even if you claim that you did not pay for such a feature, your receipts said otherwise.

I think the most moral thing to do is to ask for Sony to restore said option, and for Sony to adhere. Restitution is better rather than asking them for more than what you pay for.

My two cents. Thanks to the threadlord for making a good point. I applaud your research sir. Full of thought and study! Too bad your point is synonymous with the bastard who wants to take advantage of Sony's cash ledger...

 

[shadow skill]

I don't understand the question.

An unconscionable contract is one that someone of a sound mind would not agree to.

Ergo, to be unconscionable, the terms would have to be such that, if they were presented with them before purchase, the average person would outright refuse.

Good question. I'm sure that there are a good number of people who would refuse, but I have a feeling that there would be a huge amount of people that would still accept. I would imagine that there would be a sizable impact on sales if people were presented with these shrink-wrap contracts (EULAs) before making a monetary investment. Especially considering the fact that it is not exactly unheard of for these contracts to be successfully contested in court.

 

[Eri]

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.

 

[spartan231490]

this is a quote:
"Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement on Deceptive Advertising
I. SUMMARY

Certain elements undergird all deception cases. First, there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer."

There was nothing that occured which was likelty to mislead the customer. The device had linux capability, adn the EULA allowed for its removal. First you accepted the EULA which means, in the eyes of the law, you are responsible for knowing it's contents, so you should have known this could happen. No misleading.

second, Sony provided advanced warning that it was going to happen, so again, no misleading.

 

[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

 

[Danpascooch]

this is a quote:
"Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement on Deceptive Advertising
I. SUMMARY

Certain elements undergird all deception cases. First, there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer."

There was nothing that occured which was likelty to mislead the customer. The device had linux capability, adn the EULA allowed for its removal. First you accepted the EULA which means, in the eyes of the law, you are responsible for knowing it's contents, so you should have known this could happen. No misleading.

second, Sony provided advanced warning that it was going to happen, so again, no misleading.

It was misleading WHEN THE DEVICE WAS PURCHASED.

Once it's purchased, it doesn't matter how straightforward they are, you already gave them the cash.

 

[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

Which is irrelevant because you dont have to buy those games. and chaos, you are so right, you might want to google stella awards.

 

[robmastaflex]

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.

 

[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.

That's simply not true, also, that lady was not retarded, look into the case, she suffered ludicrously severe burns because the coffee was at an insane temperature.

Not much more I can say about this, you're simply wrong, she didn't end up paying them back.

 

[shadow skill]

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.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

 

[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 is when it sets the precedent that companies in the future can remove the abilities of hardware you purchased at will.

These PS3's either lose Linux or cannot play future released PS3 games, that's them taking something away from a product THAT WAS PURCHASED.