Sony isn't going to re-enable Other OS. Sony is strictly adverse to doing anything sensible. We'll just have to wait for custom firmware. Despite what Sony believes, custom firmware was actually the best thing that could happen to the PSP. For the longest time, the PSP was a barren wasteland due to the lack of titles. Custom firmware kept people interested in the PSP long enough that it has finally gotten some attention. The PSP Go (Sony's cure for custom firmware) was a complete failure. I'm sure they can't conceive of why it failed so hard. It's just like they'll never understand how custom firmware has helped them. They're like that parent that has to have 100% control over their kid's life and loses their damned mind the moment the kid shows any resistance at all. In other words, Sony is a bunch of control freaks.danpascooch said:
Sony Hit With 4th "Other OS" Lawsuit
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Sony can't even conceive the possibility that they do anything wrong. They expect to win every lawsuit that comes at them. Though, more realistically, they probably will find someone to settle with at a paltry sum and win because they still wont have to re-enable Other OS. That or they expect to be able to keep it tied up in court so long that by the time it is resolved they'll already have moved onto the PS4.DividedUnity said:
Not really. I own a first gen PS3. I very specifically looked at the features it had, including reading about it's ability to install Linux. I guess to create an analogy here it'd be like selling you a car and then removing the stereo from it or one of the power window locks. It's crazy, I paid alot of money for that unit and I want it fully working with all the bells and whistles it came with.LeonLethality said:
LordZ said:
Oh well I guess you make some good points. I misinterpreted and thought you meant they made money from removing the other OS option
They weren't lied to though. In the terms of agreement that you accept it states that Sony can changes the features of the console and that they can remove features as they see fit. That's what allows console updates. All 4 people will lose the lawsuits because of that simple agreement clause. It's a stupid lawsuit that will cost these people more in paying their lawyers than they'd get out of it. And them getting anything at all is not going to happen.AngryMongoose said:
Cool your lucky Ive seen some of the results and they looked far worse than they did on the PS2 itself Ive also heard it wasn't greatly compatible at least in the way users wanted. reading more some of it was fixed up then dumped when they stopped with the ps2 support.CustomMagnum said:
This sorta thing may have led to most keeping there PS2's instead of selling it and playing the PS2 games on PS3. and maybe that's why there wasn't so much of a fuss over it?
Oh, you meant initially on the launch consoles. Yeah, it looked like shit then, but the one I have is one of the last PS2-capable PS3 models in existence.Kouen said:
Well there are issues of time, trouble, and aggravation. I mean you can't use your system to do what you want for who knows how long, you have to go through the trouble and stress of going to court, etc. I mean there is a value to your free time, and perhaps lost wages from pursueing something like this. "Emotional pain and suffering" exists for a reason.LeonLethality said:
Generally speaking if the guy just demanded his $600.00 back, he'd wind up coming out on the losing end of the deal, even if they paid legal fees.
What's more there is this thing called "Punitive Damages". If a big company just throws out a bit of petty cash when guilty of wrongdoing, that doesn't encourage them to behave legally. Without punitive damages, the very rich can literally buy the system.
If I was pursueing this, which I am not since I didn't use Linux, I'd go after them for millions, because no amount short of that would be enough of a hit to properly punish Sony for wrongdoing.
This is a key element of a lot of lawsuits/sueing. Basically if your after a big business, you have to hit them big to make it meaningful, whether your case is legitimate (they are cheating you), or less so (you spilled coffee on your lap). Otherwise their attitude is pretty much going to be "who cares what we do? even if we go to court it's not going to hurt us any".
Simply put if I was going through the time and trouble of doing this I'd probably do something like find a record of Sony's quarterly profits (profits by definition being what you take in after expenses) and that would be how much I'd sue for. You cheat me, you lose 3 months of whatever your company made to me. Pretty fair when viewed that way, and despite what they might claim, I also know that since I took money after expenses that the company isn't actually going to lose anything it had before, though admittedly some expansion might be put on hold.
The bigger the company, the more money I'd be demanding, due to the fact that it takes a bigger hit for them to REALLY feel it, and if they don't it's pointless.
See, in a case like this it's not just about not being able to use the console, there is a principle to the thing. The bottom line is that Sony cheated the people who bought the console for that feature. Whether they make good on it or not, doesn't change the fact that you were cheated and had to jump through hoops.
I'm happy with my PS2 slim, well during that era of gaming I was gaming on a Xbox so I missed alot of PS2 which im catching up on xDCustomMagnum said:
[sub]My Xbox[/sub]
Back on subject well from what i can see they are within there right to do this, Hell some people may have really been using it with linux too sides it was only Sony covering there butts against possible Custom Firmware... being an owner of a PSP-1001 I know all about that xD
From http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html:LordZ said:
700 burns in ten years, that's a rate of five burns every month.
What is with the masochistic tendency of coffee drinkers to pour into themselves a liquid that can cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds? Must be why coffee is so disgusting - those who drink it have long ago burnt away all their taste buds.
I hope they win. Then I may get some money! or at least stop them removing features. First Hardware emulation, then software emulation, then memory card readers, then HDD space, then Linux. It's the only product I can think of where new iterations REDUCED functionality.
Depending on what ads you look at, the primary function of the PS3 is a "movie downloading machine", and in fact for all intents and purposes Sony has repeatedly advertised the PS3 as anything but a video game console.reg42 said:
In any event I'm not actually sure which side is in the right here. On the one hand suing over this seems a bit silly. On the other hand forcing this removal on people so that they could continue to use the PlayStation Network is definitely a dick move. And as people have pointed out, what the EULA says means nothing if it's not legal.
Because being upset when a feature that was advertised and clearly existed in a product is removed is just being unreasonable. I'd clearly be crazy to be unsatisfied with an action roughly equivalent to removing my vehicle's audio system, my iPhone's ability to use non-apple made apps or my Nintendo DS Light's ability to play GBA games.LeonLethality said:
I am nearly certain I entered into negotiations with a party (a retailor, Best Buy if I'm not mistaken) wherein I agreed to exchange a quantity of money ($399 USD plus 8.25% sales tax) in order to have in my legal possession a product known as a PS3. This contract specified that I was the legal owner of the product was was henceforth responsible for the care and feeding of the device until such time that I released it from my service. I'm also nearly certain that this process is called buying, which I hear implies ownership.Digikid said:
And also, neat factoid: in my state (Texas) in the event of a situiaton wherein a contract specifies terms prohibited by federal, state or local laws, the law takes precident. Thus, if my local city has an ordinance that prohibits such things (which it does) and it does not violate state law (which it doesn't) the EULA I agreed to is rendered moot from a legal standpoint. While I wouldn't begin to believe that it is worth my time or my money to pursue legal action, according to local ordiances I am entitled to reparations equal to the value that can best be assigned to the item removed. This actually was in response to a short practice where a car was sold on the strength of a paritcular audio system, and after the sale was in the bag but before the contract was signed the audio system would be swapped for the default model in the car. It turns out, so long as the contract specified this switch, it was legal. After one too many people left the lot unhappy when they were told the premium audio system present during the test drive was an optional upgrade they'd be happy to restore for a price, a class action suit was filed, a hubbub was raised and a local ordiance was passed. The trouble is, while I'm not certain what part of that $399 price tag was represented by the other OS option, I'm quite sure it wouldn't even pay for an hour of a law school dropouts time.