Forum Options:	my.neoforum register members prefs search faq

Thread Recap (last 10 posts from newest to oldest)

May 18, 10 at 5:49pm
ChiroVette

False advertising would be applicable, though I am not saying absolute. This is for a jury to decide, obviously. The fact is that you could choose not to do the update, but that would render your PS3 unable to receive future DLC, patches for broken games, and of course, unable to play online. Since the PS3 is a gaming console, it is reasonable to assume that you should be able to play online unless you violate the TOS and your console or PSN name is banned. Thus, asking your customers to choose between one feature (multi-OS) and another (online gaming) in this case, can be construed to be a violation of false advertising laws.

Now I want to reiterate that even though I believe these people filing this suit have a strong case, that I am not saying it is absolute or irrevocable. The fact is that issues like this polarize people. Meaning that some people are lining up attacking the suit as frivolous while others are applauding it, and neithter extreme is logical.

This really is a viable enough case so that it should absolutely be brought and put either in front of a jury or settled, BUT that does not mean I am saying Sony is wrong and the people filing the class-action suit are right! The point I am bringing up is that this is a legal issue that, to be quite honest, deserves its day in court!

Everyone aligning themselves with absolute conviction to one side or the other need to take a step back and realize that issues like this, that are not clear-cut and the law obvious, are what judges, courts, juries, and lawyers are for!

May 18, 10 at 5:20pm
Existence

Would a false advertising claim be applicable in this case, where you don't have to download the patch which removes the alternate OS feature?

I'm not a law student, and neither do I have any knowledge on the law for false advertisements or removing features, so I won't pretend to have an informed opinion on this subject. If I've learnt anything from reading John Grisham's books, its that common sense is often very different from the law.

May 18, 10 at 5:09pm
ChiroVette

AWESOME post and very well supported, Jeter!

quote adchick
The Unfair Contract Terms Act could be used to stop the disclaimer.

Yep, the US has similar legislation. In short, you can write all the disclaimers you want, but if and when legal action is brought, ones like this (broadsweeping disclaimers where companies like Sony try to usurp consumer rights, I mean) end up getting thrown out by the judge. This is one of the points I was making earlier as well.

quote adchick
It doesn't matter how important the feature is, if someone uses it, and it was advertised when it was bought, there should be some sort of compensation.

The point being that it is difficult to decide for the customer what should and should not be an important enough feature to constitute protection from being removed after you have paid your money for the product. Obviously there are some extreme examples as I illustrated in an earlier post, but the OS issue is one that is so firmly entrenched in the middleground that to casually assume this suit has no merit (as many people are doing in this thread) is completely foolish.

quote adchick
I don't really know enough about the law to make a decision though, I only did one module of contract law at uni. "Implied terms as to description, quality and sample (Sale of Goods Act 1979 ss 13-15) may only be reasonably excluded where neither party is dealing as a consumer." I think that would be your main point of argument. Then if you could show you've lost out someway, you could win.

And if you can demonstrate that you had a reasonable expectation to be able to run another OS AND had a reasonable avenue to do so, then you would be eligible in my opinion, for some sort of compensation.

quote Massive Attack
Final Blade, shut the *bleep* up. You sound like you're on Sony's payroll and on Howard Stringer's dick.

Shows how much you know! Why can't it be both?

quote Massive Attack
I hope that the next time you buy a car the manufacturer installs a remote engine shut-off device and that they activate it frequently and whenever the *bleep* they please.

Great analogy. I agree that depriving an end user of very important features you advertised in the original product can be at least argued to fall under the heading of false advertising.

May 18, 10 at 3:52pm
Jeterocks

quote Final Blade
Let's come on now, She shouldn't have won that lawsuit cause it's *bleep*ING obvious that hot coffee is hot. You know that thing that people should be using, something called common sense should kick in. There doesn't need labels saying "ice coffee if cold", "Warning: Cold" or "Warning: Hot", "Hot coffee is hot".

Here you go FB, you're wrong again. Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

quote Wiki
1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to a woman who scalded herself with hot coffee she purchased from fast food restaurant McDonald's. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case entered popular lore as an example of frivolous litigation;[2] ABC News called the case “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.”[3]
Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming that it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other place. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded.[4] Reformers defend the popular understanding of the case as materially accurate, note that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury,[5] and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than a nuisance settlement reflects the meritless nature of the suit rather than any wrongdoing.

The reason you aren't getting through to anyone Final Blade is plain and simple. You're just flat out wrong. If you took some economics classes you just might understand a thing or two. Sony owns the product all along the production life as well as when it is sitting in a warehouse. As soon as they exchange money though for their product, it no longer is theirs. The common term for this is, "selling". So once the item is sold to another person, the consumer has more power over the system than Sony does. Sony, in no way, shape, or form, should have the ability to remove advertised features of the system after they have sold the product. Removing it on the PS3 Slim works because they remove it before they have sold the item, but on the older models, they shouldn't be able to.

May 18, 10 at 9:27am
adchick

quote Massive Attack
Merchandise no longer belongs to the manufacturer once a consumer has purchased it. Advertising an item to have a certain feature and then remotely disabling that feature once that item has been purchased and no longer belongs to the manufacturer is simply not legal no matter how you try to justify it.

This is bang on the money. And the examples about the keyboard and the car are pretty good examples. You can't start taking stuff out because your security system isn't good enough.

This car might get stolen. We'll stop the engine working remotely.

May 18, 10 at 2:48am
Mnmfan

Ease off with the flamming guys.
I already edited one post but I've no problem going the extra mile and just deleting them instead.

May 18, 10 at 2:43am
Final Blade

I wasn't siding with Sony cause of fanboyish reasons, I understood their personal reasons for removing said feature and while I have no interest in that particular feature which was used to market the PS3 I understand why some may be upset.

but it's clear i'm not going to get through to you MA or anyone and since i'm probably being trolled I will end this off here.

I have nothing further to discuss with you MA.

May 17, 10 at 11:12pm
Massive Attack

Yeah that's cute and all but you still look like an enormous tool for siding with Sony. I just wanted to make sure that you understood that. You keep implying that all PS3s in existence belong to Sony. They don't. The only PS3s that belong to Sony are the ones which haven't yet left their factory. Also, Microsoft would do nothing of the sort. 360s are easy to hack and modify. So are Windows-based computers. I don't see Microsoft throwing a pissy fit over it, probably because Microsoft understand the legal and financial ramifications of doing so.

Also, you do understand that a court can order Sony to restore the feature, right?

May 17, 10 at 11:03pm
Final Blade

I don't need to respond or read avalith's post cause I already had a discussion with him last week on IRC. We came to see our points even if we disagree with each other. But unlike him, he didn't act like an ass.

Well guess what? 3 years into PS3 and the PS3 is still Non hackable. So currently this is the longest a console has gone without being hacked. And whether this could be for pirated games or cracking the PS3 to bring out Custom Firmware Sony saw it as a possible threat to THEIR PRODUCT and took action. Doesn't mean the PS3 is going to stay that way, but it's still something to be proud of for sony.

It sucks and sorry for those who has used it but it is what it is. Sony will probably pay the compensate and move on. This isn't going to affect sony really at the end.

And believe what you want MA: call me a fanboy or what not. But just to make something clear, I stopped with this discussion about the PS3 and all that on Page 2 when I mentioned avalith. I also said Sony could possible lose and/or have to pay but in the end Sony is not going to bring back the feature for their own personal reasons and worries. When you have an expensive property like PS3 you need to secure from possible threats especially when they're still losing money as a whole from the PS3.

If this was Microsoft they would have done something similar if not find a better software method to stop that.

May 17, 10 at 10:49pm
Massive Attack

quote Final Blade
MA *bleep* off. No one wants you coming in here and being an ass. There is no loophole found yet, and we still have no idea who's going to win anyway. Sony doesn't lose anyway in this situation and paying them for compensation isn't going to affect them too. Someone used an operating system using the Other OS feature to crack the PS3. This could lead to places Sony and the PS3 may not want to head considering PS3 is still losing money with the PS3(not per console sold anymore) and they're protecting their property they made.

Some of you will need to realize this is a business and Sony needs to maintain their product future from harm. If it means taking out a feature and paying some sort of compensation to get this crap over with they'll do it. They won't be putting it back on the system.

This message was edited by Final Blade on May 17 2010.

Sorry, all I heard was FANBOY FANBOY FANBOY

Merchandise no longer belongs to the manufacturer once a consumer has purchased it. Advertising an item to have a certain feature and then remotely disabling that feature once that item has been purchased and no longer belongs to the manufacturer is simply not legal no matter how you try to justify it. Aside from all of that, your justification simply doesn't work and is incredibly flawed. A good hacker doesn't need the Other OS feature to crack the PS3. There's no such thing as a non-hackable anything. No such device exists.

Avalith already explained it far better than I can, who you promptly ignored because you have no response other than "LOL COME SUCK SONY'S *bleep* WITH ME GUIZE." No thanks.

Thread title	From	Last replied
Now searching...

PlayStation 3 Hardware Forum

hideOriginal Post

May 10, 10 at 10:57pmnani17