quoteMay 7, 2010 - Two more class action lawsuits have been filed against Sony Computer Entertainment America for removing the 'Other OS' feature from the PlayStation 3.
The first lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, May 5 by Todd Densmore of Cumming, Ga., and Antal Herz of San Francisco, Calif., claim Sony has rendered several PlayStation 3 features they paid for "inoperable" as a result of the release of firmware 3.21. The update, released on April 1, 2010, disabled the ability to install the Linux operating system. By choosing not to update their console, users couldn't access separate, non-related features, such as signing onto PlayStation Network.
The suit states Sony allegedly failed to disclose to customers that it reserved the right to remove advertised, built-in features. The suit also states the right to remove the 'Other OS' feature is not disclosed in Sony's Terms of Service or System Software License Agreement.
Densmore and Herz are seeking damages and other relief the Court deems just. The class includes anyone who purchased a PlayStation 3 from November 17, 2006 to March 27, 2010 and folks who continue to own their console as of March 27, 2010.
A complete copy of the lawsuit in PDF form can be viewed here.
The second class action suit, filed on April 30 by five individuals across the United States, claims, among other things, that the plaintiffs "lost money by purchasing a PS3 without receiving the benefit of their bargain because the product is not what it was claimed to be - a game console that would provide both the Other OS feature and gaming functions."
The group is seeking compensatory damages, restitution, and injunction relief.
A complete copy of the lawsuit in PDF form can be viewed here.The total number of lawsuits filed against Sony in the last two weeks for removing the feature is now at three. On April 28, a similar lawsuit was filed by Anthony Ventura of California. That case is still ongoing.
Sony representatives told IGN the company does not comment on pending litigation.
quote adchickYep, 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.The Unfair Contract Terms Act could be used to stop the disclaimer.
quote adchickThe 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.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.
quote adchickAnd 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.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.
quote Massive AttackShows how much you know! Why can't it be both?Final Blade, shut the *bleep* up. You sound like you're on Sony's payroll and on Howard Stringer's dick.
quote Massive AttackGreat 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.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.
quote Final BladeHere you go FB, you're wrong again. Liebeck v. McDonald's RestaurantsLet'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".
quote WikiThe 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.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; ABC News called the case “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.”
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. 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, and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than a nuisance settlement reflects the meritless nature of the suit rather than any wrongdoing.
quote Massive AttackThis 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.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.
quote Final BladeSorry, all I heard was FANBOY FANBOY FANBOYMA *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.
Powered by neoforums v1.6.5b (aperture)
Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2013