Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Seldon2639]

As for playing newer games, Sony never falsely advertised Killzone 3 with Linux at same time

Yes they did. When they effectively said the PS3 will be able to dual boot OS and play any PS3 game (notwithstanding games that require third party hardware). Killzone 3 is a PS3 game (I presume). Therefore they did advertise that the PS3 could play Killzone 3 and run Linux (although obviously not simultaneously). They advertised this years before Killzone 3 had even been conceived as a game idea.

As has been discussed, this isn't quite true. They never advertised that they would be able to run Linux and play any PS3 game, only that the system has the capability for either/both. It's a subtle nuance (perhaps better understood in terms of mathematical proofs; an inclusive "any" versus an exclusive "any", but I digress), but fundamentally important.

But, nonetheless, SEA never offered any guarantee that they would support Linux indefinitely, and there is no reasonable expectation that a game system will be able to play all future games without updates and firmware changes. In this case, consider it as if they were offering you a new game console (which you don't have to pay for). You can utilize the old console, and use Linux, but they are discontinuing game development and online support. Or you can get the new console, which doesn't include Linux, but has online support and the capability to play the newer games.

Would you sue because they discontinued support for the original Xbox?

 

[oktalist]

This thread doesn't talk about "Why I should support the 'other OS' lawsuit", it talks about how our opinions doesn't matter since they don't matter legally, which is quite ironic that you even made this thread since our "support" also doesn't matter.

The OP does talk about "why you should support the 'other OS' lawsuit." It explains that the reason why is that it may set a LEGAL precedent in respect of the extent to which companies are permitted to remotely cripple your property. The rest of the thread is people saying "OH NO IT ISN'T!" and other people saying "OH YES IT IS." If you want to talk about your opinion, that's up to you, but that's not addressing the points made by the OP.

No, your opinion does not matter. Neither does mine, and neither does the OP's. The word is LAWSUIT. LAW-suit. So of course we are discussing legality.

You may have a point that your/our support might not matter; perhaps a better title would have been "why you shouldn't oppose the 'other OS' lawsuit."

 

[shadow skill]

As for playing newer games, Sony never falsely advertised Killzone 3 with Linux at same time

Yes they did. When they effectively said the PS3 will be able to dual boot OS and play any PS3 game (notwithstanding games that require third party hardware). Killzone 3 is a PS3 game (I presume). Therefore they did advertise that the PS3 could play Killzone 3 and run Linux (although obviously not simultaneously). They advertised this years before Killzone 3 had even been conceived as a game idea.

As has been discussed, this isn't quite true. They never advertised that they would be able to run Linux and play any PS3 game, only that the system has the capability for either/both. It's a subtle nuance (perhaps better understood in terms of mathematical proofs; an inclusive "any" versus an exclusive "any", but I digress), but fundamentally important.

But, nonetheless, SEA never offered any guarantee that they would support Linux indefinitely, and there is no reasonable expectation that a game system will be able to play all future games without updates and firmware changes. In this case, consider it as if they were offering you a new game console (which you don't have to pay for). You can utilize the old console, and use Linux, but they are discontinuing game development and online support. Or you can get the new console, which doesn't include Linux, but has online support and the capability to play the newer games.

Would you sue because they discontinued support for the original Xbox?

Discontinuing support for is not the same as removing functionality of. Every time Sony decides to stop supporting a given functionality I should not then see an update intended to disable that functionality in the system I already have. When Microsoft decided to terminate the original Xbox Live service they did not push out an update that caused Halo 2 to no longer work as a single player game. Nor did they release an update that disabled the ability of the original Xbox to play games made for it when they discontinued support for that system.

 

[oktalist]

My only concern is if Sony crashes, will Microsoft monopolize the console market, and make an even worse console that costs more?

You seriously think there is the remotest possibility of these lawsuits causing Sony to "crash"?

 

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

There have been over 500 replies here, and tons of forums buzzing about this lawsuit, and not a SINGLE person has argued that Sony's advertisements meant that they could make you choose between features in their list of features.

Do you know why? No, it's not because you're more intelligent than every other person on the internet, it's because it is such a ridiculously stupid argument that nobody even thought of it.

When someone gives a list of features the device has to have all of them, the PS3 does not have all of them, you either get a PS3 with no Linux, or a PS3 with no PSN or new game capabilities, so you do NOT get every feature on the list, that is false advertising, this isn't a videogame, branching exclusionary paths are not a benefit, they are illegal advertising. Advertisements promise me a PS3 that can use Linux and utilize PSN and all PS3 games, the simple fact is I don't have a PS3 that can use Linux and utilize PSN and all PS3 games, a LIST OF FEATURES mean "THESE FEATURES ARE INCLUDED" and these PS3's do NOT include all of them, they include some of them, and you get to choose. That is false advertising.

I also notice you didn't mention that quote I pulled where they used the words "in addition" instead of "either or"

Your argument is so fundamentally flawed and outrageous that I feel the need to give you a visual analogy:

In this little analogy, you are Dr.Zoidberg, and that slinky is your argument:



Satisfied? Probably not, but I'm not wasting any more time on this dead end train of thought.

 

[Danpascooch]

As for playing newer games, Sony never falsely advertised Killzone 3 with Linux at same time

Yes they did. When they effectively said the PS3 will be able to dual boot OS and play any PS3 game (notwithstanding games that require third party hardware). Killzone 3 is a PS3 game (I presume). Therefore they did advertise that the PS3 could play Killzone 3 and run Linux (although obviously not simultaneously). They advertised this years before Killzone 3 had even been conceived as a game idea.

As has been discussed, this isn't quite true. They never advertised that they would be able to run Linux and play any PS3 game, only that the system has the capability for either/both. It's a subtle nuance (perhaps better understood in terms of mathematical proofs; an inclusive "any" versus an exclusive "any", but I digress), but fundamentally important.

But, nonetheless, SEA never offered any guarantee that they would support Linux indefinitely, and there is no reasonable expectation that a game system will be able to play all future games without updates and firmware changes. In this case, consider it as if they were offering you a new game console (which you don't have to pay for). You can utilize the old console, and use Linux, but they are discontinuing game development and online support. Or you can get the new console, which doesn't include Linux, but has online support and the capability to play the newer games.

Would you sue because they discontinued support for the original Xbox?

I already explained this to you, and now I see oktalist has also, if you aren't satisfied with our explanations, bring something new to the table, tell us WHY what we said isn't true and why there is no difference between original xbox live and a static one time pay feature that requires no upkeep.

But if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again despite us explaining it repeatedly, than you are spamming, and I have no patience for that.

 

[Jumplion]

I just have one question;

[HEADING=1]What. Advertising?[/HEADING]

Every single time I hear this argument it's always "Sony advertised it, therefore it's false advertising!"

I have never seen a single god-damn advertisement for the "Install other OS" feature, so please explain to me how that can be "false advertisement"? Show me one TV commercial or banner ad or computer ad that shows "Instal other OS feature!" or some variation of that and it would DRAMATICALLY clear up whateverthehell it is that's being argued.

As for the EULA agreement, you signed the thing stating you agreed what the terms of service was or whatever they were. It's not exactly "above the law" if there is no "false advertising" to begin with.

 

[Danpascooch]

I just have one question;

[HEADING=1]What. Advertising?[/HEADING]

Every single time I hear this argument it's always "Sony advertised it, therefore it's false advertising!"

I have never seen a single god-damn advertisement for the "Install other OS" feature, so please explain to me how that can be "false advertisement"? Show me one TV commercial or banner ad or computer ad that shows "Instal other OS feature!" or some variation of that and it would DRAMATICALLY clear up whateverthehell it is that's being argued.

As for the EULA agreement, you signed the thing stating you agreed what the terms of service was or whatever they were. It's not exactly "above the law" if there is no "false advertising" to begin with.

It's in my OP, if you want to argue here, I suggest you read it, I gave a link to a site that lists all of the advertisements and promises Sony made that would lead a customer to know that PS3 comes with Linux.

It's at the bottom of the OP in an edit (and don't say it wasn't there when you looked at it, I made that edit hours ago)

 

[Jumplion]

I just have one question;

[HEADING=1]What. Advertising?[/HEADING]

Every single time I hear this argument it's always "Sony advertised it, therefore it's false advertising!"

I have never seen a single god-damn advertisement for the "Install other OS" feature, so please explain to me how that can be "false advertisement"? Show me one TV commercial or banner ad or computer ad that shows "Instal other OS feature!" or some variation of that and it would DRAMATICALLY clear up whateverthehell it is that's being argued.

As for the EULA agreement, you signed the thing stating you agreed what the terms of service was or whatever they were. It's not exactly "above the law" if there is no "false advertising" to begin with.

It's in my OP, if you want to argue here, I suggest you read it, I gave a link to a site that lists all of the advertisements and promises Sony made that would lead a customer to know that PS3 comes with Linux.

It's at the bottom of the OP in an edit (and don't say it wasn't there when you looked at it, I made that edit hours ago)

Hurk-a-dur, missed that link, apologies, thought it would just link to some legal mumbo-jumbo as a lot of posts regarding this issue do.

But even after I read the link I hardly think that that would really be considered "advertising". That's just a post on a blog, that means nothing. A blog post is not a binding contract. (unless I completely missed the link again, in which case sorry...again!)

It's like if a scientist said "we'll have this technology out in stores in a month!" on a scientific journal and the project gets canceled and people sue him. There's nothing that he can really do about it now can he?

But eh, obviously since I'm not affected by this at all I have no stake in it. But I really do have to wonder what uses Linux really had for the PS3 aside from the pirating.

 

[Seldon2639]

There have been over 500 replies here, and tons of forums buzzing about this lawsuit, and not a SINGLE person has argued that Sony's advertisements meant that they could make you choose between features in their list of features.

Do you know why? No, it's not because you're more intelligent than every other person on the internet, it's because it is such a ridiculously stupid argument that nobody even thought of it.

Ah. Once we've exhausted any semblance of actual discourse, we fall to the logical fallacies. Shall I enumerate them?

1. Appeal to the majority
2. Ad hominem
3. Bandwagoning
4. Begging the Question
5. Biased Sample

Hell, those are only the ones that come readily to mind. But, I believe this is one of the cases where truth will out, so if you have no more interest in a civil discussion, I'm more than happy to let this drop.

When someone gives a list of features the device has to have all of them, the PS3 does not have all of them, you either get a PS3 with no Linux, or a PS3 with no PSN or new game capabilities, so you do NOT get every feature on the list, that is false advertising, this isn't a videogame, branching exclusionary paths are not a benefit, they are illegal advertising. Advertisements promise me a PS3 that can use Linux and utilize PSN and all PS3 games, the simple fact is I don't have a PS3 that can use Linux and utilize PSN and all PS3 games, a LIST OF FEATURES mean "THESE FEATURES ARE INCLUDED" and these PS3's do NOT include all of them, they include some of them, and you get to choose. That is false advertising.

Repetition does not change reality, I promise. No matter how many times I repeat that I'm surrounded by naked cheerleaders, I cannot alter the very fabric of space-time to make it true. Similarly, you cannot make something false advertising merely by repeating that it is. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so put up some case law which supports your conclusions (as I have for mine) or cease to make findings of fact or conclusions of law, as you lack the foundation to do so.

I also notice you didn't mention that quote I pulled where they used the words "in addition" instead of "either or"

I wonder if you read the posts you respond to, or just kind of skim. I responded to that directly, browse up a bit.

Your argument is so fundamentally flawed and outrageous that I feel the need to give you a visual analogy:

In this little analogy, you are Dr.Zoidberg, and that slinky is your argument:

Satisfied? Probably not, but I'm not wasting any more time on this dead end train of thought.

I can't help but question whether you have a mind for any kind of discussion. I'll note that you have cited neither case, nor statute, nor any factual basis for your erroneous conclusions (aside from "it's false advertising because it's false advertising", which is almost the definition of begging the question. You've offered yourself as some legal expert, I ask to avail myself of your vaunted wisdom.

Can you not oblige me?

 

[Seldon2639]

I already explained this to you, and now I see oktalist has also, if you aren't satisfied with our explanations, bring something new to the table, tell us WHY what we said isn't true and why there is no difference between original xbox live and a static one time pay feature that requires no upkeep.

But if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again despite us explaining it repeatedly, than you are spamming, and I have no patience for that.

Your repetition that you have "explain[ed] it" lacks credulity. Where I have strained and put effort into coming up with new arguments, and new support in statute and precedent which provides the foundation to my argument, you have simply repeated the same thing.

Allow me to summarize your argument:

"They said you could use the other OS, and now they're taking it away. That makes it false advertising."

Even were you a judge, you would be under some requirement to justify that in statute and substance, but you have done neither. You've cited an irrelevant regulatory agency, but no body of applicable law which provides any basis for your conclusions. If you have added something more of substance, I have not seen it. Perhaps an edit slipped my notice.

I have responded to every element of your argument, whereas you conveniently ignore elements of mine and claim to have already responded. I will specify, for your benefit.

1. Realizing (as an astute legal mind must) that there is no charge in civil court for 'false advertising' in and of itself, under what case law or statute do the advertisements in question create a contractual obligation to indefinitely provide access either to new releases, or Linux, or the Playstation Network?
2. Given that there are multiple possible interpretations of the advertisement's meaning, how do you aim to show that the only reasonable interpretation is the one you have offered?
3. Given the easy access to the EULA online, how will you show that the contract (if any) did not specifically include the provisions of the EULA therein?
4. Given the fact that the consumers in question received compensation for their monetary contribution, the market value of which was (arguably) entirely sufficient, what damages would you aim to prove, and how would you show them? Bearing in mind, please, that the only real damages here would be any difference between the value of the PS3 (even without Linux capability) and the price the consumer paid, as measured by a fair market value.
5. If you seek injunctive relief, how to you intend to show that SEA has wrongly failed to live up to its end of any agreement, and would thus be estopped from changing it?
6. How will you show that the contract in question was not fulfilled with the proffer of the PS3 itself, independent of any capabilities beyond that, which it will be argued are entirely discretionary on the party of SEA? To wit: how will you show that the PS3 in and of itself isn't worth $500, and that everything else SEA offered was above and beyond the price they charged, which would be full mitigation of damages?

But, I assume you have no interest in actual discourse, and rather only want a series of people trumpeting your own one-sided, biased, and substantially inaccurate interpretation. As I said, though, the truth will out. If this goes to trial (which I highly doubt, given that it is at most a nuisance suit), I will be very surprised if your legal expertise were called upon to elucidate the issues at hand.

And, as always, your post [needs citations]

 

[Seldon2639]

I just have one question;

[HEADING=1]What. Advertising?[/HEADING]

Every single time I hear this argument it's always "Sony advertised it, therefore it's false advertising!"

I have never seen a single god-damn advertisement for the "Install other OS" feature, so please explain to me how that can be "false advertisement"? Show me one TV commercial or banner ad or computer ad that shows "Instal other OS feature!" or some variation of that and it would DRAMATICALLY clear up whateverthehell it is that's being argued.

As for the EULA agreement, you signed the thing stating you agreed what the terms of service was or whatever they were. It's not exactly "above the law" if there is no "false advertising" to begin with.

It's in my OP, if you want to argue here, I suggest you read it, I gave a link to a site that lists all of the advertisements and promises Sony made that would lead a customer to know that PS3 comes with Linux.

It's at the bottom of the OP in an edit (and don't say it wasn't there when you looked at it, I made that edit hours ago)

Hurk-a-dur, missed that link, apologies, thought it would just link to some legal mumbo-jumbo as a lot of posts regarding this issue do.

But even after I read the link I hardly think that that would really be considered "advertising". That's just a post on a blog, that means nothing. A blog post is not a binding contract. (unless I completely missed the link again, in which case sorry...again!)

It's like if a scientist said "we'll have this technology out in stores in a month!" on a scientific journal and the project gets canceled and people sue him. There's nothing that he can really do about it now can he?

But eh, obviously since I'm not affected by this at all I have no stake in it. But I really do have to wonder what uses Linux really had for the PS3 aside from the pirating.

The only real argument that could be made would be of promissory estoppel/breach of contract. Basically, the plaintiffs will have to argue that they were lead to believe that SEA would continue to support Linux, and that Sony thus is estopped from removing it as a feature.

Here's the issue, it's a concept called "adverse reliance". Basically, you can't just show "he promised me something, and didn't do it", you have to show that you relied on such promises to your detriment. Any detriment is, thus, your damages (treble damages if you're lucky and the court feels that punitives are in order). In this case, any damages would be (arguably) whatever the value of the service would be, or the full value of the PS3 if they could show that they would not have purchased one save for their belief in its Linux capabilities.

If the court were reasonable (and they usually are), the damages will be nominal, whatever the difference in free market value is between the purchase price of the PS3, and the worth of the PS3 sans Linux capability.

But, the issue also becomes this: they would have to specify which statement they claim as being a promise. In this case, if they only claim promises made after the point of purchase, they're SOL. They have already bought the machine, so there can be no adverse reliance (they spend no money nor acted in any different way based on the "promises" made). If they claim the original advertising is a promise, it becomes a different issue. As I mentioned earlier, the court has a tendency to assume consumers aren't complete idiots, and are fairly stringent about what they consider a breach of contract or implied covenant of good faith when it comes to advertisements. I know that part because my firm recently lost a case on that very issue.

 

[Mark Kennard]

I just have one question;

[HEADING=1]What. Advertising?[/HEADING]

OMG. I go away for a full day, this post ha been up for about two days now, and people still haven't read the OP. Why are people simply seeing this forum, skipping to the last page, not reading comments and just assuming it hasn't been covered yet. If you have something to say other than 'I support this' or 'I don't support this' then go away. What you have said has already been said by several people. Grrr. Are you getting close to your monthly bandwidth cap or something and can't download half the pages? Just read them.

 

[Mark Kennard]

snip

Wait, I flamed somebody? I may have made a few condescending or sarcastic posts but never actually flamed anything, as far as I can remember.

You are also putting words in my mouth and twisting my words, you were saying things like sony are murdering people, that blowing it way out of proportion and is actually rather slanderous. If your attempting to make me look stupid saying things like that make you look way more stupid.

Wow. You really are dumb aren't you and you really do have to have the last word. Listen mate, I never insulted you (except for just then) so I have no idea what you're on about with me 'flaming you', and I am not putting words in your mouth either. WTF are you reading, because it's certainly not this forum. If anyone is putting words in anyones mouths it's you saying I accused Sony of mudering someone. If you would get your head out of your ass you would have seen I said that one of these days if we keep letting companies break the law and not speak up about it (like I have said several times now) then maybe one day with will get away with murder.

Are you know comparing Sony to Hitler? It wouldn't surprise me after some of you other posts involving rather fantastical lines,

Spoiler: here's you best post so far

So two wrongs make a right then? So because everyone does it, it's all right? So if Sony murders someone and Toshiba, Samsung, Microsoft, Apple, Dell, HP, Logitech, Intel, AMD and IBM all go murder someone as well it's all right because they all did it so if you sue one of them it won't stop VMWare from jumping in and doing it to. Companies need to be told when enough is enough. They are children and if you let them get away with it like we have, they will get away with murder next.

.

Hitler didn't start with false advertising and Sony executives are not trying to over throw Obama.

Dude, read a book. Hitler started out by saying the Jews are less than them and saying Germans are pure. Sounds like false advertising to me. What so you agree with him? I bet you'll turn this around on me but you really are starting to piss me off.

Also I don't see what was wrong with my post. I have read it several times and still don't know what was wrong with it. Are you seriously that stupid?

You want a serious debate then with a previous post like that? It's the tsar bomba to serious debate.

I don't understand why you quoted me then said thank you but your welcome.

You said you were going away. I said thanks because I thought you had left for whatever reason and I was glad I wouldn't have to put up with your crap for much longer.

In all honesty, it's nothing to get worked up over and yet alot of you seem to be doing so. I guess you just want a thread full of people saying "yeah, Sony sucks. Sue the bastards for false advertising", just a feeling I am getting.

I am not trying to flame, troll or wind people up just saying.

I'm only getting worked up because you are so dense. How can you not see the point people try to make. People give you a pretty decent analogy, explain the analogy, give another analogy, explain the new analogy, give another analogy, explain that one as well and you still don't understand it. Either my analogies are really, really bad or you are a forum troll trying to bump your post count.

 

[omega 616]

snip

Hypocrisy thine name is you, I left this thread a few times yet people keep quoting me, so I am assuming they want to continue talking to me, when in fact they just want to criticize me, only fleetingly mention the actual topic at hand and grab the last word, which I am not bothered about. I have gave up the last word, then somebody else quoted me so I talked to them only to be quoted again by the first person.

So false advertising can lead to murder? Like vegaterianism can lead to megalomania and genocidal tenandcies, Hitler was a veggie. Get real, your critizisms lose what little weight they have when you type something like

I said that one of these days if we keep letting companies break the law and not speak up about it (like I have said several times now) then maybe one day with will get away with murder.

.

Your calling propagander "false advertising"? Your insulting me with things like "dense" and "dumb" when your saying these things, false advertising is saying "coke cures cancer", propagander is saying "all germans are genocidal killing machines".

Nobody is asking/forcing you to read my posts or comment back so it's up to you "to put up with my crap".

I previously stated your analogies are bad, saying imagine taking your car to a garage were they steal a bolt everytime you take it there till your car falls apart is a far cry from taking away a mostly non used feature from a console, even if you factor in everything they have removed from the PS3 systems, the systems still work, your analogies imply sony are going to remove everything from the PS3 till it no longer works, (which you actually admited it meaning) which is an absolutly insane thing to post.

All of these things combine make your posts not only off topic but laughable.

Now, unless you want to start talking about other OS removal, which is the actual topic and Seldon2639 has posted a pretty devastating argument on so quote him instead, please do not quote me again, to do so would be an asinine move on you part, since all you would be doing is flaming/critisizing me. If you feel you need the last word be my guest but atleast make it on topic.

 

[Mark Kennard]

Hypocrisy thine name is you, I left this thread a few times yet people keep quoting me, so I am assuming they want to continue talking to me, when in fact they just want to criticize me, only fleetingly mention the actual topic at hand and grab the last word, which I am not bothered about. I have gave up the last word, then somebody else quoted me so I talked to them only to be quoted again by the first person.

So you walk away from something, say you are walking away from it, saying you don't want the last word, and then when someone quotes you you come back and get the last word. Hypocrisy thine name is you.

So false advertising can lead to murder? Like vegaterianism can lead to megalomania and genocidal tenandcies, Hitler was a veggie. Get real, your critizisms lose what little weight they have when you type something like

I said that one of these days if we keep letting companies break the law and not speak up about it (like I have said several times now) then maybe one day with will get away with murder.

.

Would you stop with the murder arguement? Hypocrisy thine name is you. You go on about me putting words in your mouth, and then you accuse me of saying false advertising advertising can lead to murder. Your logic is so farfetched. I am getting tired of quoting MYSELF on this: if we let them get away with small stuff now, they will raise the bar and we will lower our standards more and more until they do something big. My example was murder, and you go on about how corporate murder is something that will never happen. Ever seen the car industry? Ever heard of the logic where if a recall costs more than lawsuits for a car killing someone, they will just put up the the lawsuits? Companies do stuff which you wouldn't believe and they only get away with it because of people like you choosing to ignore it because this time it is only one small thing.

Your calling propagander "false advertising"? Your insulting me with things like "dense" and "dumb" when your saying these things, false advertising is saying "coke cures cancer", propagander is saying "all germans are genocidal killing machines".

Propaganda (not propagander) is when you tell someone something and tell them it is the truth in order to get the to go along with what you want. False advertising is when you tell someone something and tell them it is the truth to get the to buy your stuff. Definitions aren't too far apart, but I never said they were the same. I said that dictatorships start with small stuff and then they progressively do more and more until what you are left with is one big failure. That is what I was comparing the PS3 to. It started as one thing, and then they progressively removed more and more until what you are left with is one big failure. Again, not a big difference in definitions there.

I never said Sony is Hitler and I especially never said anything as racist as 'Germans are genocidal killing machines' and with very good reason.

Nobody is asking/forcing you to read my posts or comment back so it's up to you "to put up with my crap".

I previously stated your analogies are bad, saying imagine taking your car to a garage were they steal a bolt everytime you take it there till your car falls apart is a far cry from taking away a mostly non used feature from a console, even if you factor in everything they have removed from the PS3 systems, the systems still work, your analogies imply sony are going to remove everything from the PS3 till it no longer works, (which you actually admited it meaning) which is an absolutly insane thing to post.

Implications are a key part of analogies. I was trying to show (and I have lost count of how many times I have said this now) "It started as one thing, and then they progressively removed more and more until what you are left with is one big failure. Again, not a big difference in definitions there."

All of these things combine make your posts not only off topic but laughable.

How is it off topic when I am justifying the lawsuit?

Notice how I quoted you but didn't use your name so you didn't have to interupt your precious time with coming back. IF you come back and read this, it's not because I called you back.

 

[powell86]

The entire EULA is a load of crap because it's a contract you only see after you have already given them your money. It won't hold up in court.

It's not something people could have read and said "because of this, I'm not buying the console"

and I'll say it for the hundredth time, if Sony didn't do anything illegal, they don't need the EULA to back them up, if they did do something illegal, then the law supersedes the EULA, either way, that means the EULA is not relevant.

The law definitely supersedes EULA provided that the EULA is not illegal. Like i said, they'll use the reasonableness test to determine whether EULA will be considered legal or not. And yes, people are SUPPOSE to read and say "because of this, I'm not buying the console". You are entitled to a full refund under law (whether u get it easily is another case all together and has nothing to do with the legality of EULA)

And also, having the EULA to back them up has EVERYTHING to do with whether what Sony does is legal or not. If the court upholds deems it a fair contract and deems that what Sony does is reasonable under the rights as stated in the EULA, yes it is legal. Sony is not "hiding" behind the EULA. The EULA is the agreement which u signed your rights away to them. And btw, the EULA never ever stated anything that is illegal. It doesn't say Sony can steal money from u, or Sony can bash you up or etc. The EULA in this case talks only about Sony's rights to change any specs post agreement unilaterally. Under certain guidelines yes it is legal. And it is what we are fighting on now.

It seems to me that you have a very loose grasp of understanding with regards to legality and contract laws. With you saying the umpteenth time doesn't make your assertion any truer.

 

[powell86]

Snip

Hey, I'm so glad to see you posting your knowledge on this forum. It seems that you are the only one among all of them who actually has studied or actually have a decent knowledge of business law and litigation procedures. What i'll suggest is, don't bother arguing with the TS, from his introduction you could see that he does not have a good understanding of statues and the due legal course that follows. Though i agree with him that Sony is kinda screwing people over this one (even though it is a very minute group i believe, sorry linux users), I believe TS and a few others have mistaken moral obligations vs legal obligations.

As this is not really a legal forum but u noe, a gaming forum, i believe this is not a platform for proper legal discussion. We've said our peace, if they do not want to believe our words what can we do? No point arguing over things they do not understand =)

Yupz same thing goes to you mr kennard. Chill man. haha no point arguing with others who'll bring you down to their level and beat you by experience lol.

 

[Danpascooch]

The entire EULA is a load of crap because it's a contract you only see after you have already given them your money. It won't hold up in court.

It's not something people could have read and said "because of this, I'm not buying the console"

and I'll say it for the hundredth time, if Sony didn't do anything illegal, they don't need the EULA to back them up, if they did do something illegal, then the law supersedes the EULA, either way, that means the EULA is not relevant.

The law definitely supersedes EULA provided that the EULA is not illegal. Like i said, they'll use the reasonableness test to determine whether EULA will be considered legal or not. And yes, people are SUPPOSE to read and say "because of this, I'm not buying the console". You are entitled to a full refund under law (whether u get it easily is another case all together and has nothing to do with the legality of EULA)

And also, having the EULA to back them up has EVERYTHING to do with whether what Sony does is legal or not. If the court upholds deems it a fair contract and deems that what Sony does is reasonable under the rights as stated in the EULA, yes it is legal. Sony is not "hiding" behind the EULA. The EULA is the agreement which u signed your rights away to them. And btw, the EULA never ever stated anything that is illegal. It doesn't say Sony can steal money from u, or Sony can bash you up or etc. The EULA in this case talks only about Sony's rights to change any specs post agreement unilaterally. Under certain guidelines yes it is legal. And it is what we are fighting on now.

It seems to me that you have a very loose grasp of understanding with regards to legality and contract laws. With you saying the umpteenth time doesn't make your assertion any truer.

You say you're entitled to a full refund? Where did you get THAT impression?

If you live in the US, and you try to return a PS3 after opening it, unless it's defective, 99 times out of 100 they aren't going to take it back.

And that 1 time, they'll give you store credit.