Sony Hit With 4th "Other OS" Lawsuit

[TheGuy(wantstobe)]

EULA's very rarely hold up in any court simply due to the fact it is forcing you into a contract after the sale. You've already bought the console and then when you turn it on you have to sign the contract or you can't use it even though it is already yours.

A good analogy would be if you had a house built on land that you own. You paid the builders,plumbers electricians and when it was done and finished you wanted to move into your shiny new house they came up to you saying that you can't live there unless you sign a contract saying that at any time they feel like it they can come back and take away parts of your house.

It is completely insane and is exactly what companies do. Hence why they never hold up in court and are only really there to scare people who don't know any better out of a lawsuit before it even happened.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Side note: Whatever happened to personal responsibility in the world?
That's why the coffee case won: She was personally irresponsible and the company paid for her stupidity.

I hardly agree with the coffee precident (the coffee was Hot afterall, as coffee traditionally is). Of course, normal warm coffee would not cause a problem - the issue was, in fact, three fold. First, the McDonalds coffee was actually significantly warmer than that served at similar chains (the exact figures aren't terribly releveant but are a matter of public record - I just can't be bothered to look. Because of this, the coffee was warm enough to cause significant tissue damage given enough time. The second factor was that the person in question was wering a garment that held the coffee next to the skin - precisely what the just shy of boiling water would need to cause severe burns. The third was the affected area (the groin), an area sensitive enough to cause most to reflexively grimmace when a hapless movie character demonstrates that pain from strangers can be hilarious.

McDonald's pointed out that in spite of their very warm coffee they sold a LOT of it, more than any other place in the country. The Jury however interpreted this as meaning "we cared more about making money than we care about this one silly person" and the result was a multi-million dollar award (the plantiff initially only wanted to cover the cost of medical and legal fees). McDonalds appealed the verdict and the result was a lower (but still very pricy) spill.

The question when it comes to personal responsibility is thus a bit muddied. The company traditionally served cofeee hot enough to scald and it was only because of this that the damage could be done. The "victim" on the other hand purchased the coffee, placed it between her legs, and then spilled the coffee while wearing clotes ideally suited to exacerbating the problem. This issue could not have occured without the actions of either party. By the same token, if this particular user had been a bit more careful it would have happened to someone else because the intial cause (coffee that is hot enough to scald) was present. Adding the text "Caution: HOT" to every cup (the lingering result) hardly solves the problems associated with prolonged tissue contact with very hot beverages, and simply serves to reinforce the notion that the case was simply one of personal responsiblity. That memory resolves neither the problem of very hot coffee nor poor judgement and simply serves to help sway a future jury that McDonalds (and every other major place that serves heated beverages in disposable containers) made a reasonable effort to protect the consumer from themselves.

 

[wooty]

I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

By this standard, Sony could remove the ability to play games. Imagine the situation where the ps4 comes out, so Sony stops the ps3 from being able to play games to get more ps4 sales. Doesn't this sound ridiculous?

They did that with the PS3/PS2 backwards compatibility, there was a little angst, but nothing along the lines of a lawsuit.

That's different, they did not forcibly remove a feature from something that somebody had ALREADY PURCHASED, they simply did not include a feature in a future product.

You know, after thinking about it, I'm going to roll over and admit defeat on this issue. I thought Sony had the right to include and remove what they wanted through the software updates.

That plus I'm getting tired of my inbox being spammed

 

[Dzil]

So... piling onto this thread:

Re: Coffee incident. A key factor in this lawsuit was the lid came off. Arguably the McDonald's employee didn't correctly fasten it to the cup, but partly not his fault as the McDonalds cup lids were notoriously bad for coming off. Lid coming off while driving -> hot coffee in lap. I agree blame was shared there: one could certainly make the case that it's not up to McDonalds to inform a customer not to stick scalding hot coffee inches away from their privates. But they do have an obligation to make reasonably secure lids for said near boiling beverage to help protect their customers from safety hazards.

Re: Sony. Sony should offer a refund on the consoles, and if not should be sued for it + court costs for refusing to do right by their customer in the first place. Plain and simple, if you sell a product that advertises it does X, and then it does not do X, you are a FRAUD. No EULA excuses being a fraud, not to mention the portion quoted on page one had to do with sony online services, not using the console itself. In other words Sony claims the right to discontinue it's online server at some point in the future, it does not within that EULA claim the right to eradicate competing OS on the system. And further, by allowing it to go to court they are eating bad press, and leaving themselves vulnerable for worse lawsuits. Not only court costs, but situations like the air force saying they built critical applications on the PS3 using this other OS option that represent a HUGE resource investment, now wasted. I mean, we all are familiar with how the US military budgets things: it's like a million dollars for a damn cup holder. I wonder what they budget for mega-software that manages their air logistics? Billions? Trillions?

A much better plan would be to suck up whatever perceived loss they are eating to this other OS option, and simply discontinue it in the next console generation. People will pout whine and protest, but then quickly drop their so called ethical stand the moment the game they really want is released. See the L4D2 boycott.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

People, they smell a chance to make a quick buck from moaning and they jump to it. I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

As true as that is, I think its a completely different matter that they changed it AFTER they sold it to you. Had they decided to remove the "other OS" BEFORE mass distribution, hell, it would be stupid but completely and totally in their jurisdiction.

However, now that many people have purchased and used the "other OS" option for a good year or two without any truly adverse affects, I think they are well within their rights to pursue some sort of legal action. After all, the fact that it could run other OS's was indeed well advertised for the PS3.

 

[PS2MAN]

Since anyone who has chosen not to update can no longer play any new games on it, Sony is breaking their back since the update was only meant to remove Linux, and not the consoles primary function.

The choice Sony gave was not PSN or Linux, but rather Games Console with PSN functionality or Console with Linux and no gaming functions.

 

[DTWolfwood]

People, they smell a chance to make a quick buck from moaning and they jump to it. I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

No it's not, because it's not THEIR machine, it's YOUR machine, you bought it for Christ's sake!

Why do people seem to think the company that made the product still owns it even after you paid for it? It seems to be a growing trend lately, especially with Apple.

These people BOUGHT the PS3, that means they own it, and are immune to having Sony do the equivalent of show up at their front door and repossess a piece of it because they feel like it!

Curious than why are the games developers allowed to hold your games hostage with their always on DRM but SONY isn't allowed to remove something they deem not beneficial to them?

so you know im not picking on you but you are on the first page so thats more or less all the comments i read for the thread. Im just questioning the logic behind it. I agree that when u buy something u should own it. However, on the same token SONY isn't obligated to patch your system should their be a software problem if we take this kind of Hardline stance.

either way this "other OS" has no affect on me. Sucks for the science experiments though really sucks.

 

[DTWolfwood]

EULA's very rarely hold up in any court simply due to the fact it is forcing you into a contract after the sale. You've already bought the console and then when you turn it on you have to sign the contract or you can't use it even though it is already yours.

A good analogy would be if you had a house built on land that you own. You paid the builders,plumbers electricians and when it was done and finished you wanted to move into your shiny new house they came up to you saying that you can't live there unless you sign a contract saying that at any time they feel like it they can come back and take away parts of your house.

It is completely insane and is exactly what companies do. Hence why they never hold up in court and are only really there to scare people who don't know any better out of a lawsuit before it even happened.

Gasp! sound reasoning and logic that isnt inflammatory! love it!

 

[Danpascooch]

People, they smell a chance to make a quick buck from moaning and they jump to it. I think its well within Sony's right to remove an option from THEIR machine

No it's not, because it's not THEIR machine, it's YOUR machine, you bought it for Christ's sake!

Why do people seem to think the company that made the product still owns it even after you paid for it? It seems to be a growing trend lately, especially with Apple.

These people BOUGHT the PS3, that means they own it, and are immune to having Sony do the equivalent of show up at their front door and repossess a piece of it because they feel like it!

Curious than why are the games developers allowed to hold your games hostage with their always on DRM but SONY isn't allowed to remove something they deem not beneficial to them?

so you know im not picking on you but you are on the first page so thats more or less all the comments i read for the thread. Im just questioning the logic behind it. I agree that when u buy something u should own it. However, on the same token SONY isn't obligated to patch your system should their be a software problem if we take this kind of Hardline stance.

either way this "other OS" has no affect on me. Sucks for the science experiments though really sucks.

I don't like DRM either, I think it's ALL a bunch of crap.

 

[McNinja]

Isn't that sort of all they are suing for?

From what I read they are suing for a bit more

I'm amazed that people are getting their panties in a knot over something like this. For the air force it was kind of understandable but people suing for this is just ridiculous.

People sue over almost anything nowadays, but this is a little more understandable. Removing the Other OS feature from the origonal PS3 models is a dick move on Sony's part due to how it was an advertised feature at first. And for the moment if people keep the Other OS thing, there's far more things they won't be able to do, mostly related to PSN.

I can understand how one would be angry at Sony for removing an advertised feature but asking for anything more than a refund is just being greedy.

Actually, anything more than either a refund or the re-instatement of the Other OS option would be rather greedy. It was a dick move by Sony, but not one that should cost them millions of dollars.

And for that matter, how could Sony not see this coming? Who thought it would be a great idea to disable an advertised feature? Suing Sony for millions of dollars might be greedy, but Sony definitely screwed the pooch on that one.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

Not to rain on their parade or anything as I too think removing features is bullshit but they don't have anything on Sony legally.

In most User Agreements and other legal rubbish I'm pretty sure it states "We reserve the right to make changes etc. etc."

I know nobody reads those but it is explicitly listed.

EDIT: I failed the read the argument above me so disregard this post as he makes a very convicing and smart point.

 

[tunnel b1]

what an asshole!Sony only did that "FOR THE GREATER GOOD"