Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[Danpascooch]

I appreciate what you're doing, and you make several good points, but seriously, the PS3 has had sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *continues for three days* ooooooo many jokes made about how it doesn't have any games and how it was only made to do this and that. Now Sony obliges by making the Ps3 more of a gaming system, and people complain more. It's part of my "Whiners complain about Sony no matter what" theory.

Linux support isn't really something that directly helps us play games, so I'm afraid I couldn't care.

Though I'm probably gonna be verbally castigated for missing some "vital" point in your argument, so I have my flame shield up.

If they want to make it more of a gaming system, they should focus on adding games, not taking away everything else.

The time spent making the patch that killed Linux could have been spent making games, and thus making it more of a gaming system.

 

[Danpascooch]

I don't want to continue this with you, I believe it to be a futile loop whether you do or not, your reason it wasn't was because we didn't fully address eachother's points, now that I did, it follows that you need to also, or else we go back to the loop.

You refused to respond to my points save for me finding applicable case law. Having done so, you gave your word that you would respond in kind. The onus is on you to follow your obligation as created by your statements advertising an intent to respond.

I won't be making a list like you did, because you want to continue this and I don't. Out of respect I will continue the argument if you provide me something new to continue with (an address of the points you didn't address before) but you can't expect me to put in that kind of work to continue an argument I don't even want to continue anyway.

Your inability to admit that you were simply inaccurate vis-a-vis the legal realities of the case is charming. And I suppose if you're unwilling to show even the barest respect and decorum due a legitimate discussion, you're well within your rights to stop responding. But, in the same breath, it would be best if you then ceased to misrepresent the law as it exists.

The point is, if you want to continue, you can find and address those points, and I'll continue, but I'd be happy to just leave it where it is since I think we're at an impasse, so don't expect me to make an effort to keep something going that I want to let end.

So, as you've said, you're willing to let me do your work for you? If you cannot muster the courage and intellect to enumerate your positions I have not responded to, or respond to my points as listed a few pages back (to which you have yet to respond), one can only reasonably assume that you must admit those points as valid. If you do not accept my points as valid (given that I have met my burden of proof to provide citations), you must then yield to them.

Thus, you accept that there is little if any damage stemming from this supposed violation, and even if there is liability, the actual harm and recompense from it is negligible at most. The impasse here is your inability to come up with a valid rejoinder to my arguments and evidence. If you cannot simply do that, I'm going to hope that you cease any attempt to claim any expertise in this area (or, really, any area of law) and cease to playact at being a legal scholar.

You've also broken your promise to provide evidence of damages, or any citation of legal authority which would have any jurisdiction on that issue. That makes you a liar and a cheat, and hence a hypocrite.

It's tough to be held to the same standard as those you accuse, isn't it?

Perhaps you should wait a few minutes before typing up your next novel, in the time it took you to write this I already posted with more legal references and a response.

God, you start complaining so quickly and take so long to finish that by the time it's posted the thing you're complaining about has already been fixed.

 

[Danpascooch]

I did read it, and that's true, but you are forgetting that there was another factor in the ProCD case:

"it may be worth noting that the user in the Zeidenberg case had purchased and opened the packages of multiple copies of the product, and therefore could not easily prove he remained ignorant of the contract/license; whereas in many cases, the so-called shrink-wrap "license" agreement has not been reviewed at the time of purchase"

I wonder if the court verdict would have been the same if he had only purchased one instead of continuing to purchase them after seeing the contract multiple times, we'll never know.

There is no official US stance on Shrink Wrap Contracts, there are two opposing cases that both make their decisions not based solely on the fact that the contract was shown after the purchase, it really could go either way in my opinion.

True, but irrelevant in this case. That speaks to the ability to prove ignorance, rather than the validity of the contract if the consumer is cognizant of it. Given that the EULA is displayed the first time the system is used (as far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong), there is no refuge to be found in ignorance of the EULA.

If no ignorance existed, then the consumer was aware of the EULA upon use of the product. Given that it could be returned if the consumer disagreed with the EULA and refused to follow it, they assented to the EULA when they did not return it.

Again back to the "did not return it"

I want to know what makes you think stores will accept returns based on you disagreeing to a EULA, seriously, find it for me, if you can prove to me that I have a legal right to return anything I've already opened but didn't agree to the EULA contained in it, and that they legally must accept the return (a law not a precedent) then I'll concede that you're right.

 

[Seldon2639]

Funny, I don't ever recall calling myself a "legal scholar" I simply stated the source of my basic knowledge when I was asked.

As a general rule, the objective of contract damages is to insure that the aggrieved or injured party should receive what he or she expected from the bargain. To the extent that an award of money can do so, the aggrieved party should be placed in the same position as though the contract had been fully performed. This is what is known as protecting the expectation interest of the parties. (Rest.2d §344(a); UCC 1-106.)

Also, according to the California Civil code section 1549:
CIVIL CODE
SECTION 1549-1550

1549. A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain
thing.

Sounds to me like under Californian law, their advertisements that they include Linux would be tantamount to a contract.

If that is the case, then Sony has TWO OPPOSING CONTRACTS out there.

Actually, if you were paying attention, I already yielded (for the sake of argument) on the EULA argument, and on the argument about the advertisements creating a contract.

Go respond to the points you promised to respond to, please. The ones about proof of damages, about the lack of exemplary damages, and how you intend to prove adverse reliance.

 

[Seldon2639]

Perhaps you should wait a few minutes before typing up your next novel, in the time it took you to write this I already posted with more legal references and a response.

God, you start complaining so quickly and take so long to finish that by the time it's posted the thing you're complaining about has already been fixed.

I'd really feel bad about that if you had actually responded to the points that you promised to respond to

The EULA was your bugbear, not mine. I have no need to rely on the EULA to demand you show me adverse reliance, and damages. Show me a legal authority which would allow them to do anything more than (at most) return the systems and get a full refund. And then show me how you aim to prove that they should be able to be refunded the cost without claiming that no one in the class would have bought a PS3 without the promise of Linux support (the claim of which would be a lie).

Don't claim to have responded to what you agreed to when you haven't yet, please. I can repost what you promised to address, if you'd like. I don't mind doing you that favor.

 

[Seldon2639]

Again back to the "did not return it"

I want to know what makes you think stores will accept returns based on you disagreeing to a EULA, seriously, find it for me, if you can prove to me that I have a legal right to return anything I've already opened but didn't agree to the EULA contained in it, and that they legally must accept the return (a law not a precedent) then I'll concede that you're right.

That... Doesn't make sense. Precedent is about 90% of the law (when you say "law" of course, you mean statute). So, I'll concede I can find no statute which provides that right, but that's like saying "go find me a book, but it can't be printed on paper". You know the precedent exists, and that if you went to SCEA and demanded to return an unused PS3 since you decline to accept the EULA they would refund it.

Precedent is law, and trying to hamstring me like that is a cheap ploy.

 

[Danpascooch]

Perhaps you should wait a few minutes before typing up your next novel, in the time it took you to write this I already posted with more legal references and a response.

God, you start complaining so quickly and take so long to finish that by the time it's posted the thing you're complaining about has already been fixed.

I'd really feel bad about that if you had actually responded to the points that you promised to respond to

The EULA was your bugbear, not mine. I have no need to rely on the EULA to demand you show me adverse reliance, and damages. Show me a legal authority which would allow them to do anything more than (at most) return the systems and get a full refund. And then show me how you aim to prove that they should be able to be refunded the cost without claiming that no one in the class would have bought a PS3 without the promise of Linux support (the claim of which would be a lie).

Don't claim to have responded to what you agreed to when you haven't yet, please. I can repost what you promised to address, if you'd like. I don't mind doing you that favor.

1. A contract must be shown to have existed

I already addressed this with my California civil code definition of what a contract is, and my argument that advertisements constitute a contract, so don't say I didn't address this.

2. That contract must be shown to have been relied upon and fulfilled by the party bringing suit. If the plaintiff has also breached the contract, he cannot sue for breach of contract.

All the Linux users have to do is show they used the feature, effortless, all they have to do is show them their now inert Linux partition on the PS3 Hard drive. There is no evidence to support that these plaintiffs breached any contract.

3. The contract must be shown to have been breached by the defendant

This news comes a little more a month after Sony management confirmed to the PS3-Linux community that the company was committed to keeping this feature on systems sold with this feature:

>> The feature of "Install Other OS" was removed from the new
>> "Slim" PS3 model to focus on delivering games and other
>> entertainment content.
>>
>> Please be assured that SCE is committed to continue
>> the support for previously sold models that have the
>> "Install Other OS" feature and that this feature will
>> not be disabled in future firmware releases.

Under the California Civil code definition of a contract "1549. A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing." Sony agreed to not disable the Linux feature in future firmware releases.

By removing it, they clearly violated that contract.

4. The plaintiff must show damages resulting from his adverse reliance on the contractual provisions.

The damages would be no longer having a machine that runs Linux, therefore the defendant could argue that Sony needs to refund them the cost of the console, or the cost to buy a comparably capable Linux capable machine.


Now I want that list of points and your responses to them, or I'm done, I'm getting really sick of responding to your accusations when you've ignored half of mine.

 

[Danpascooch]

Again back to the "did not return it"

I want to know what makes you think stores will accept returns based on you disagreeing to a EULA, seriously, find it for me, if you can prove to me that I have a legal right to return anything I've already opened but didn't agree to the EULA contained in it, and that they legally must accept the return (a law not a precedent) then I'll concede that you're right.

That... Doesn't make sense. Precedent is about 90% of the law (when you say "law" of course, you mean statute). So, I'll concede I can find no statute which provides that right, but that's like saying "go find me a book, but it can't be printed on paper". You know the precedent exists, and that if you went to SCEA and demanded to return an unused PS3 since you decline to accept the EULA they would refund it.

Precedent is law, and trying to hamstring me like that is a cheap ploy.

Ok fine, find ANY proof that I have a legal right to return something I don't agree to the EULA of, because if you can't, then your argument of "he didn't return it" makes no sense, because he probably wasn't able to return it.

 

[shadow skill]

You don't think you should own something you bought? What are you paying for then?

Because if you DO think you should own it, then I point you to the definition of "own":

OWN: to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power and dominion. - dictionary.com

When Sony removes things you paid for at your discretion, that means you don't have full authority over the PS3 that you own. When you purchase something you own it, it's not a rental, or a subscription, it's a purchase, yet you don't own the PS3 under the definition.

You think it's fair that people payed $600 for something that they are now figuring out they don't own?

At least you're only trying to argue ethics now. Perhaps you've recognized that your legal arguments were bunk, and have thus shifted to debate you can more likely prevail on. That I can appreciate.

Still, when you bought the product, you bought it with knowledge that Sony could alter the fundamental system at any time (and since the EULA would be valid is a shrink-wrap contract (see the citations from my discussion with Shadow Skill above), you can hardly claim otherwise). If I buy a car, with an agreement that the dealership can service it at any time, and remove whatever they like, I have given them the authority to do so.

Am I stupid for agreeing to that contract? Absolutely. Does that make it wrong? Maybe. Does it mean I don't "own" the product? Maybe. When we start blaming entities for making contracts which only a foolish person would agree to if they cared about the possible adverse provisions therein, we're being a bit unfair. We cannot be charged with protecting people from being stupid.

There is no requirement that people actually read these shrink-wrap contracts. This is the reason why people need to either be presented with such things up front or there needs to be some reasonable expectation that they did in fact see the EULA. When you buy a car you have to sign the contract itself, you don't just click through. It's not even possible to prove whether the person bringing the lawsuit actually clicked agree if they deny doing so, especially if we are talking about something in a web browser that does not include a "captcha." I have written screen scrapers, it is ridiculously easy to have a machine click any button on a webpage. It isn't even all that easy to prove that the person purchasing the machine is the one who scrolled down and clicked agree even if the EULA was shown on first startup if they deny it.

If I sign a contract with a car company they can produce the contract and do things like handwriting analysis to prove I did sign the document. Conversely I can do the same and prove that my signature was forged. With these shrinkwrap contracts in some cases there isn't even a way to prove that a human being assented to the agreement, let alone any particular individual! I haven't found any evidence that the EULA is displayed when you first startup the machine either:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAhS7tooLZU

From that video it looks like no such display ever happens for the Slim. The quick start guide available on the playstion website doesn't even mention clicking through an EULA when it lists the initial steps for setting things up after you power on. I doubt they would have such a display for the older models and then get rid of it for the latest one. From my own research and memory it suggests to me that this case is alot more like Specht v Netscape than you give it credit for since the EULA isn't actually presented to people on the system until they update (PSN not withstanding since that is a separate EULA. Though it is worth noting that you can in fact skip the EULA without actually having to scroll down to the bottom on the PS3.) I certainly don't remember either myself or my brother being confronted with an EULA when we started up our playstion 3's for the first time.

Here is another slim video this one isn't in English but it is much easier to see the screeen:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C5WtfhjCqc

Thanks for clearing up that auto update thing btw. Informative.

 

[grayjo]

Considering one of the excuses Sony used for cutting Other OS out of the Slim was cost cutting, you should be able to claim that "saving" as damages shouldn't you? Because Sony put a value on that feature, then took it away from people that had paid for it.

Those damages would be brought under an unjust enrichment claim. But, that has its own issues.

In unjust enrichment, you're claiming a breach of a contract, but that some portion of the contract (on both sides) was already fulfilled. In this case, you can claim that Sony was unjustly enriched by charging the full price for a PS3 which would then have more limited capabilities.

But, those damages would only amount to whatever the difference is between the price paid, and the fair market value of the object. But, how do you show that a PS3 without Linux is worth less than the full retail price, and by how much? At best, you'd get some small portion of the cost back. Again, contract suits can only make you whole, without a tort in there somewhere (and I'd bet the tort claims here get dismissed), you get only compensatory damages.

i believe a small portion would be fine for most people... and you could put a value on that feature by either checking how much Sony's manufacturing costs changed due to the removal of the feature or comparing the feature to a linux computer of equivalent power (including the video limitations).

The important part of these class action suits isn't to get te claimants lots of money, it to show to companies they can't do whatever they like and hide behind a contract you don't have to read or in some cases even expressly agree to. Even a $50-100 refund per person spread across all fat ps3 purchases would hurt Sony enough to make them think twice before summarily removing features people paid a premium for.

If the law supports the companies in this... the law should be ashamed of itself.

 

[Pendragon9]

I appreciate what you're doing, and you make several good points, but seriously, the PS3 has had sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *continues for three days* ooooooo many jokes made about how it doesn't have any games and how it was only made to do this and that. Now Sony obliges by making the Ps3 more of a gaming system, and people complain more. It's part of my "Whiners complain about Sony no matter what" theory.

Linux support isn't really something that directly helps us play games, so I'm afraid I couldn't care.

Though I'm probably gonna be verbally castigated for missing some "vital" point in your argument, so I have my flame shield up.

If they want to make it more of a gaming system, they should focus on adding games, not taking away everything else.

The time spent making the patch that killed Linux could have been spent making games, and thus making it more of a gaming system.

Well, if the Linux opened a vital line for hacking someone's accounts, it would directly affect someone's gaming. And chances are they'd be sued for having such a flaw.

They gotta do something.

 

[Jory]

The point is. If I sell you a toaster, then some time down the line realise it can be a safety hazard. I can't just come round and disable it without compensation. It's my duty to make it safe again.

So in the case of Sony, yes it was a security threat. But it's there job to FIX it, not just get rid of it.

 

[Danpascooch]

I appreciate what you're doing, and you make several good points, but seriously, the PS3 has had sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *continues for three days* ooooooo many jokes made about how it doesn't have any games and how it was only made to do this and that. Now Sony obliges by making the Ps3 more of a gaming system, and people complain more. It's part of my "Whiners complain about Sony no matter what" theory.

Linux support isn't really something that directly helps us play games, so I'm afraid I couldn't care.

Though I'm probably gonna be verbally castigated for missing some "vital" point in your argument, so I have my flame shield up.

If they want to make it more of a gaming system, they should focus on adding games, not taking away everything else.

The time spent making the patch that killed Linux could have been spent making games, and thus making it more of a gaming system.

Well, if the Linux opened a vital line for hacking someone's accounts, it would directly affect someone's gaming. And chances are they'd be sued for having such a flaw.


They gotta do something.

The point is. If I sell you a toaster, then some time down the line realise it can be a safety hazard. I can't just come round and disable it without compensation. It's my duty to make it safe again.

So in the case of Sony, yes it was a security threat. But it's there job to FIX it, not just get rid of it.

Look, someone already posted my answer for me ^

 

[SinisterGehe]

Honestly cant you guys just live with it? You need to sue for everything that happens in your little world behind the pond?
I haven't heard ANYONE in Finland whining about this. just /shrug and live with it.

You obviously didn't read the full OP.

It sets a dangerous precedent, it's not really about the feature itself, I don't even use the PS3

So you are steaming about something that doesn't touch your life... Ain't that a being Hypocrite? And beside if some big company really wants to do something. They will find a way to do it. And at the end. They are in control of their products, if they want them all to be shutdown. They can make that happen.
I'm not supporting this stupidity. A, It is not my fight. B, I could care less, C, Does that fucking linux need to be on everything, if it cant be but on something they most go and whine about it. D, I'm sure that Multi OS ad wont be in the new PS3 releases.

Just live with it. You don't need to sue for everything. Even you live behind the pond. I personally think this wont be going trough.

How am I being a Hypocrite? That makes no sense.

And no they can't just forcibly shut down something they sold you, that's basically stealing, did you put any thought into what you just said at all?

I don't even use the PS3, so I have no problem "living" with the lack of Linux support, I am concerned with the premise, and that hardly constitutes "suing for everything"

Also, just note, A and B are pretty much the same point.

It's not about the fact that I can't live without it, I never even used the feature, it's the fact that Sony assumes they have the power to take away something you paid for.

I think they do and they should have the power.

You don't think you should own something you bought? What are you paying for then?

Because if you DO think you should own it, then I point you to the definition of "own":

OWN: to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power and dominion. - dictionary.com

When Sony removes things you paid for at your discretion, that means you don't have full authority over the PS3 that you own. When you purchase something you own it, it's not a rental, or a subscription, it's a purchase, yet you don't own the PS3 under the definition.

You think it's fair that people payed $600 for something that they are now figuring out they don't own?

I pay total of 250? a year on different audio/composing software licenses.
So did you buy The PSP and The software/OS/something it uses? Or? In this case, do you own the Hardware and Software or only one of them?

 

[Danpascooch]

Honestly cant you guys just live with it? You need to sue for everything that happens in your little world behind the pond?
I haven't heard ANYONE in Finland whining about this. just /shrug and live with it.

You obviously didn't read the full OP.

It sets a dangerous precedent, it's not really about the feature itself, I don't even use the PS3

So you are steaming about something that doesn't touch your life... Ain't that a being Hypocrite? And beside if some big company really wants to do something. They will find a way to do it. And at the end. They are in control of their products, if they want them all to be shutdown. They can make that happen.
I'm not supporting this stupidity. A, It is not my fight. B, I could care less, C, Does that fucking linux need to be on everything, if it cant be but on something they most go and whine about it. D, I'm sure that Multi OS ad wont be in the new PS3 releases.

Just live with it. You don't need to sue for everything. Even you live behind the pond. I personally think this wont be going trough.

How am I being a Hypocrite? That makes no sense.

And no they can't just forcibly shut down something they sold you, that's basically stealing, did you put any thought into what you just said at all?

I don't even use the PS3, so I have no problem "living" with the lack of Linux support, I am concerned with the premise, and that hardly constitutes "suing for everything"

Also, just note, A and B are pretty much the same point.

It's not about the fact that I can't live without it, I never even used the feature, it's the fact that Sony assumes they have the power to take away something you paid for.

I think they do and they should have the power.

You don't think you should own something you bought? What are you paying for then?

Because if you DO think you should own it, then I point you to the definition of "own":

OWN: to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full claim, authority, power and dominion. - dictionary.com

When Sony removes things you paid for at your discretion, that means you don't have full authority over the PS3 that you own. When you purchase something you own it, it's not a rental, or a subscription, it's a purchase, yet you don't own the PS3 under the definition.

You think it's fair that people payed $600 for something that they are now figuring out they don't own?

I pay total of 250? a year on different audio/composing software licenses.
So did you buy The PSP and The software/OS/something it uses? Or? In this case, do you own the Hardware and Software or only one of them?

You own what you purchased, in this case that is a PS3 with Linux support.

 

[Pendragon9]

I appreciate what you're doing, and you make several good points, but seriously, the PS3 has had sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *continues for three days* ooooooo many jokes made about how it doesn't have any games and how it was only made to do this and that. Now Sony obliges by making the Ps3 more of a gaming system, and people complain more. It's part of my "Whiners complain about Sony no matter what" theory.

Linux support isn't really something that directly helps us play games, so I'm afraid I couldn't care.

Though I'm probably gonna be verbally castigated for missing some "vital" point in your argument, so I have my flame shield up.

If they want to make it more of a gaming system, they should focus on adding games, not taking away everything else.

The time spent making the patch that killed Linux could have been spent making games, and thus making it more of a gaming system.

Well, if the Linux opened a vital line for hacking someone's accounts, it would directly affect someone's gaming. And chances are they'd be sued for having such a flaw.


They gotta do something.

The point is. If I sell you a toaster, then some time down the line realise it can be a safety hazard. I can't just come round and disable it without compensation. It's my duty to make it safe again.

So in the case of Sony, yes it was a security threat. But it's there job to FIX it, not just get rid of it.

Look, someone already posted my answer for me ^

No, that really isn't accurate. An accurate comparison would be if the toaster also made Coffee for no extra cost, and they disabled that.

Now, tell me, is there a way for you to keep Linux and disable the security threat? If there's a way to do that, and you know how, then do tell me, and you'd definitely have a good case against Sony.

 

[Danpascooch]

I appreciate what you're doing, and you make several good points, but seriously, the PS3 has had sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *continues for three days* ooooooo many jokes made about how it doesn't have any games and how it was only made to do this and that. Now Sony obliges by making the Ps3 more of a gaming system, and people complain more. It's part of my "Whiners complain about Sony no matter what" theory.

Linux support isn't really something that directly helps us play games, so I'm afraid I couldn't care.

Though I'm probably gonna be verbally castigated for missing some "vital" point in your argument, so I have my flame shield up.

If they want to make it more of a gaming system, they should focus on adding games, not taking away everything else.

The time spent making the patch that killed Linux could have been spent making games, and thus making it more of a gaming system.

Well, if the Linux opened a vital line for hacking someone's accounts, it would directly affect someone's gaming. And chances are they'd be sued for having such a flaw.


They gotta do something.

The point is. If I sell you a toaster, then some time down the line realise it can be a safety hazard. I can't just come round and disable it without compensation. It's my duty to make it safe again.

So in the case of Sony, yes it was a security threat. But it's there job to FIX it, not just get rid of it.

Look, someone already posted my answer for me ^

No, that really isn't accurate. An accurate comparison would be if the toaster also made Coffee for no extra cost, and they disabled that.

Now, tell me, is there a way for you to keep Linux and disable the security threat? If there's a way to do that, and you know how, then do tell me, and you'd definitely have a good case against Sony.

The accusation that they broke their contract does not hinge on "whether it was necessary" they either broke it or they didn't. I can't prove they could have disabled it another way, but if they couldn't, they need to offer at least a partial refund to those affected.

The Playstation 3 was advertised to have Linux support, you can't say it was at "no extra cost" as though it's some sort of bonus, people payed for it under the promise that it had Linux support, some people wouldn't have bought it otherwise, it's not a "bonus at no extra cost" it's a feature that people took into account when deciding whether to purchase the system.

 

[Pendragon9]

snip

Well, people who bought it specifically for Linux support can be mad and might have a case. However, the Ps3 is a gaming system first and foremost, so I really can't stand behind this suit.

I understand they took away a feature which was advertised, and might be a breach of terms, but all that can justly be gained from this suit is at least a partial refund. If anyone wants anything else from this, I'd consider them being greedy. After all, if you buy a Ps3, you shouldn't expect to just disregard it's ability as a gaming console. And if you bought it just to be something else, I can't feel sorry for you. Buy a real computer if you want Linux support.

:/

 

[Danpascooch]

snip

Well, people who bought it specifically for Linux support can be mad and might have a case. However, the Ps3 is a gaming system first and foremost, so I really can't stand behind this suit.

I understand they took away a feature which was advertised, and might be a breach of terms, but all that can justly be gained from this suit is at least a partial refund. If anyone wants anything else from this, I'd consider them being greedy. After all, if you buy a Ps3, you shouldn't expect to just disregard it's ability as a gaming console. And if you bought it just to be something else, I can't feel sorry for you. Buy a real computer if you want Linux support.

:/

I understand that the lawsuit doesn't apply to you, nor would I have a case, but I think the court should order that Linux support be reinstated or award them a refund.

 

[Pendragon9]

snip

Well, people who bought it specifically for Linux support can be mad and might have a case. However, the Ps3 is a gaming system first and foremost, so I really can't stand behind this suit.

I understand they took away a feature which was advertised, and might be a breach of terms, but all that can justly be gained from this suit is at least a partial refund. If anyone wants anything else from this, I'd consider them being greedy. After all, if you buy a Ps3, you shouldn't expect to just disregard it's ability as a gaming console. And if you bought it just to be something else, I can't feel sorry for you. Buy a real computer if you want Linux support.

:/

I understand that the lawsuit doesn't apply to you, nor would I have a case, but I think the court should order that Linux support be reinstated or award them a refund.

That does sound fair. Maybe they could seperate the linux support from actual PSN networking. Or perhaps make it so you can only go on one service at a time.

I don't know, but it would be nice if they could do that.