Sony Sued Over "Other OS" Option

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

And how much did your lawyer charge you to disprove some anonymous internet posters?

 

[Danpascooch]

First off, "Coffee's hot" is a dumb argument for the point that it's ok to make coffee so ridiculously and dangerously over the top searing that it causes incredibly serious burning.

Secondly, I don't even use the PS3, so I definitely don't use the Linux feature, and could care less from a personal standpoint about them removing it, so don't bother telling me to "suck it up" and no I wouldn't sue any of those other companies because what they are doing is legal, what Sony did is not, and it's not fully within their rights, as they forcibly removed a feature that was advertised when many people bought their PS3s.

She should of asked for coffee that wasn't so hot then.

Are you saying she should have specifically asked for coffee that wasn't dangerously hot to the point that it was unbelievably unreasonably hotter than any normal cup of coffee?

It's impossible to even talk to you when you say things like that, it just, ugh, seriously?

If you were to get a cup of coffee, would you specify that you don't want it to be dangerously hot? Or would you just assume that they would give you a coffee at a standard temperature instead of heating it up to unreasonable points. That cup of coffee wasn't normal by normal standards, or by Mcdonald's standards either, the person heating it messed up and heated it to an insane temperature.

Could you imagine if every time you got a hot drink, you had to say "Excuse me sir/madam? Could you not make my drink unbelievably dangerous in any way?" because that is what you are saying that woman should have did, and if you didn't say that, they could make it insanely hot, or put razor blades in it, or some other ridiculous thing to no legal fault? Jesus man, is that how your brain works? Because people shouldn't have to say that they don't want to be served a dangerous drink in order to receive a safe drink, if we had to specify basic assumed safety matters like that instead of making a reasonable number of assumptions, we would spend hours every day saying things like "would you mind not running that red light?" and "could you not shoot a nail gun at me?" instead of assuming that the person in the drivers seat knows how a red light works, and that that guy at the hardware store won't just start shooting nails at you unless you ask him not to.

Your post just reminded me of a comic I recently read:

(I'm not saying you're an idiot, simply that I believe that last post to be idiotic, there's a difference)

 

[chronobreak]

I don't see why people would be against the physical act of someone bringing this to court, we are lucky that we are free enough to bring matters that are important to us and other people in front of a judge and our peers to get a proper ruling. We all have the same right to bring things to court that we disagree with, and the freedom to exercise it. You can throw around all the lawyer-speak you want, or the opinion of one legal professional, but who knows what will happen with this case. This could actually be an important precedent set by the courts either way the ruling goes.

 

[v3n0mat3]

I always thought that the Install other OS function was rather stupid. In that the console could be more easily hacked. So, why Sony didn't rectify this situation earlier is beyond me. It's a HUGE security risk, and should never have been implemented in the first place, in my opinion.

Whether it should have been implemented, or whether it was useful is irrelevant legally, you know that right?

I do, but the thing is, they make it perfectly clear that all the functions are variable and can be changed or removed. If they decide to remove a function for whatever reason, they are free to do so. It is their product, and they have no legal obligation to anyone, unless it's a licensed (and in this case it's not) function (i.e. Netflix). The biggest issue is that people act as if they weren't warned. Well, guess what? The patch notes were posted for MONTHS. So if anyone feels surprised, they should have paid attention to the dev. blog.

 

[chronobreak]

So if anyone feels surprised, they should have paid attention to the dev. blog.

To be fair, I don't think most people really check stuff like that. I don't have a PS3, but does it say anywhere to check a blog to recieve news, like in the manual or anything?

When something can kill you, like pesticide, there is a warning on the product itself, but I don't know if Sony can use the excuse that people should have known to check a blog. Not that it would matter much to the case, just making a point. If my XBox Live service all of a sudden went down, but it was on the XBox site that it was going to happen, I probably wouldn't know, as I don't check it.

She should of asked for coffee that wasn't so hot then.

So your argument then is coffee should be served by default at a dangerous enough tempurature to cause 3rd degree burns?

Coffee served at home is around 140 degrees. The coffee McDonalds was serving was 190 degrees. At 180 degrees, liquid will cause a full thinkness burn to skin in 2 to seven seconds. If it would have spilled at an average household tempurature, the liquid would have had time to cool and the burn would be greatly reduced.

Would it make more sense to you to serve the coffee at a reasonable tempurature, or for customers to have to ask for liquid that would not harm them?

 

[Danpascooch]

First off, "Coffee's hot" is a dumb argument for the point that it's ok to make coffee so ridiculously and dangerously over the top searing that it causes incredibly serious burning.

Secondly, I don't even use the PS3, so I definitely don't use the Linux feature, and could care less from a personal standpoint about them removing it, so don't bother telling me to "suck it up" and no I wouldn't sue any of those other companies because what they are doing is legal, what Sony did is not, and it's not fully within their rights, as they forcibly removed a feature that was advertised when many people bought their PS3s.

She should of asked for coffee that wasn't so hot then.

Are you saying she should have specifically asked for coffee that wasn't dangerously hot to the point that it was unbelievably unreasonably hotter than any normal cup of coffee?

It's impossible to even talk to you when you say things like that, it just, ugh, seriously?

If you were to get a cup of coffee, would you specify that you don't want it to be dangerously hot? Or would you just assume that they would give you a coffee at a standard temperature instead of heating it up to unreasonable points. That cup of coffee wasn't normal by normal standards, or by Mcdonald's standards either, the person heating it messed up and heated it to an insane temperature.

Could you imagine if every time you got a hot drink, you had to say "Excuse me sir/madam? Could you not make my drink unbelievably dangerous in any way?" because that is what you are saying that woman should have did, and if you didn't say that, they could make it insanely hot, or put razor blades in it, or some other ridiculous thing to no legal fault? Jesus man, is that how your brain works? Because people shouldn't have to say that they don't want to be served a dangerous drink in order to receive a safe drink, if we had to specify basic assumed safety matters like that instead of making a reasonable number of assumptions, we would spend hours every day saying things like "would you mind not running that red light?" and "could you not shoot a nail gun at me?" instead of assuming that the person in the drivers seat knows how a red light works, and that that guy at the hardware store won't just start shooting nails at you unless you ask him not to.

Your post just reminded me of a comic I recently read:

(I'm not saying you're an idiot, simply that I believe that last post to be idiotic, there's a difference)

I like how you completely avoided the whole EULA i had posted. Nicely done.

Coffee = Hot. Spilling Coffee = Pain. IF a store wanted to make their coffee so ridiculously hot that it would burn someone then so be it. I would assume people don't pour Coffee all over themselves after ordering. The only way i could ever say that they were in the wrong is if the coffee was boiling. And i mean cup shaking boiling not just a bubble. I've worked in the Kitchen that has Coffee water that is boiling and they haven't been sued yet so i'm sure this is just another point of People will try to sue for easy cash.

So if a company wants to make normal cups of coffee for years, and then suddenly makes one super dangerous cup of coffee that is so hot that's it's not just dangerous if spilled, but dangerous to drink (would seriously burn mouth and throat, again THIRD DEGREE BURNS DON'T COME EASILY) that's fine? Well then you can't possibly have an objection to my idea of having them spike a coffee with razorblades every so often, since it's about as dangerous. You have got to be kidding me.

She won the case, the facts were reviewed, she got third degree burns, you can look it up, the coffee was dangerously hot. Your argument of "coffee is hot" is rediculous, because I could just as easily use that point to say "sno-cones are cold" and justify using a combination of dry ice and liquid nitrogen that would yield a sno-cone that is fatally cold.

And I like how you said it's easy money. Yeah, nothing's as "easy" as getting covered with 3rd degree burns. What is "hard" money then, getting bashed repeatedly over the head with a hammer while having your fingers removed with rusty tongs, while simultaneously being sprayed in the eyes with battery acid?

If you think that's easy money, I'd LOVE to learn how you make money. I bet its SO much harder than having large swathes of skin destroyed by the most severe burn classification in existence.


BTW, if that kitchen you worked at was serving cups of coffee that were shaking due to heavily boiling water, that doesn't mean Mcdonald's was not in the wrong, it just means you worked for some incredibly stupid people.

 

[Danpascooch]

I don't see why people would be against the physical act of someone bringing this to court, we are lucky that we are free enough to bring matters that are important to us and other people in front of a judge and our peers to get a proper ruling. We all have the same right to bring things to court that we disagree with, and the freedom to exercise it. You can throw around all the lawyer-speak you want, or the opinion of one legal professional, but who knows what will happen with this case. This could actually be an important precedent set by the courts either way the ruling goes.

THANK YOU. Why isn't anyone else of this opinion?

It's good to have the law interpreted and revised by professionals every once in a while through civil suits, so that companies know what is and is not appropriate to do with their customers.

 

[The Political Gamer]

*sigh* This is why I have yet to update my PS3. I really hope this pulls though and they add it back on.

 

[v3n0mat3]

So if anyone feels surprised, they should have paid attention to the dev. blog.

To be fair, I don't think most people really check stuff like that. I don't have a PS3, but does it say anywhere to check a blog to recieve news, like in the manual or anything?

When something can kill you, like pesticide, there is a warning on the product itself, but I don't know if Sony can use the excuse that people should have known to check a blog. Not that it would matter much to the case, just making a point. If my XBox Live service all of a sudden went down, but it was on the XBox site that it was going to happen, I probably wouldn't know, as I don't check it.

All online services ask you to check the blog/website for updates. Hell, for PS3, it's easier, as they have a direct link to it when you go into the web browser.

 

[ENKC]

"It only does everything."

Except backwards compatibility. And now alternative OSes. It doesn't bother me personally but it feels like Sony have been gradually removing features as they've added others.

 

[Kajin]

I don't get why this is such a big deal. Once upon a time, the PS3 was capable of doing something. Now it doesn't do it anymore. Why in gods name do people care about this?!

Okay, fine, I get it, someone is mad because they bought the console for the 'Other OS' option, and now their console is useless to them. But here is the thing... The Sony Corporation didn't get to where it is today by being run by slack-jawed idiots. Odds are pretty good that whatever reason they had for removing the feature was a damned good one. It was already on the console. It probably wouldn't have cost them too much to keep it on the console. It probably even cost them a lot more to remove it as a feature than it would have to keep it.

Do I know why they removed it? No. Do I care? Still no. Odds are this guy is just another idiot out to try and make himself a quick buck by taking advantage of a situation that to anyone else would be an annoying inconvenience and whining nonstop that he was "victimized by the giant flaming shaft of big business."

I hope this guy dies of a heart attack brought on by greasy mcdonalds fast food.

 

[Danpascooch]

I don't see why people would be against the physical act of someone bringing this to court, we are lucky that we are free enough to bring matters that are important to us and other people in front of a judge and our peers to get a proper ruling. We all have the same right to bring things to court that we disagree with, and the freedom to exercise it. You can throw around all the lawyer-speak you want, or the opinion of one legal professional, but who knows what will happen with this case. This could actually be an important precedent set by the courts either way the ruling goes.

You don't think what this person is doing is stupid at all? I understand bringing stuff to court. Suing a company that has sold you defective product when they knew it was defective. But Sony is being sued for something they had every right to do. In the EULA they say they will Add or Remove utilities. If you don't agree to it then you can't use the Network to play. The fact that you have to agree to it every time there is an update and yet people will say they can't do this when you have agreed like 18 times before and now you say no because they removed a possible security risk? I'm saying you in a general term not you the poster alone lol.

11. MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADES

From time to time, it may become necessary for SCEA to provide certain content to you to ensure that Sony Online Services and content offered through Sony Online Services, your PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system, the PSP® (PlayStation® Portable) system or other SCEA-authorized hardware is functioning properly in accordance with SCEA guidelines. Some content may be provided automatically without notice when you sign in. Such content may include automatic updates or upgrades which may change your current operating system, cause a loss of data or content or cause a loss of functionalities or utilities. Such upgrades or updates may be provided for system software for your PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system, the PSP® (PlayStation® Portable) system, or other SCEA-authorized hardware. Access or use to any system software is subject to terms and conditions of a separate end user license agreement found at http://www.us.playstation.com/termsofuse. You authorize SCEA to provide such content and agree that SCEA shall not be liable for any damages, loss of data or loss of functionalities arising from provision of such content or maintenance services. It is recommended that you regularly back up any archivable data located on the hard disk.

So if a company wants to make normal cups of coffee for years, and then suddenly makes one super dangerous cup of coffee that is so hot that's it's not just dangerous if spilled, but dangerous to drink (would seriously burn mouth and throat, again THIRD DEGREE BURNS DON'T COME EASILY) that's fine? Well then you can't possibly have an objection to my idea of having them spike a coffee with razorblades every so often, since it's about as dangerous. You have got to be kidding me.

She won the case, the facts were reviewed, she got third degree burns, you can look it up, the coffee was dangerously hot. Your argument of "coffee is hot" is rediculous, because I could just as easily use that point to say "sno-cones are cold" and justify using a combination of dry ice and liquid nitrogen that would yield a sno-cone that is fatally cold.

And I like how you said it's easy money. Yeah, nothing's as "easy" as getting covered with 3rd degree burns. What is "hard" money then, getting bashed repeatedly over the head with a hammer while having your fingers removed with rusty tongs, while simultaneously being sprayed in the eyes with battery acid?

If you think that's easy money, I'd LOVE to learn how you make money. I bet its SO much harder than having large swathes of skin destroyed by the most severe burn classification in existence.


BTW, if that kitchen you worked at was serving cups of coffee that were shaking due to heavily boiling water, that doesn't mean Mcdonald's was not in the wrong, it just means you worked for some incredibly stupid people.

When i drink Tea i make sure the water is boiling first. I don't just warm it up then make the tea. I'm sure if i spilled it on my Body i would get 3rd Degree burns. BUT i don't drive with it or do silly things that may cause it to spill on my lap. If a Child Kills another Child with a Gun do you Sue the Company that made the Gun? If you get cancer while smoking do you sue the Cigarette Company? If you choke on a Piece of hard candy and almost die do you sue the Company that made that hard candy? But they made that candy to hard you may claim....yeah. All of that sounds stupid to me.....well except the Smoking one but they got warnings on the packs now.

I would definitely sue the gun maker if that kid was working for the gun maker, and was on the job when he shot the other kid.

She was suing the company the kid who made that dangerous coffee was working for when it was served, so your analogies don't make any sense. It was 100% justified.

 

[chronobreak]

Ugh, I messed up this post accidentaly. @DonnyP I'm sure what I originally had in here is in your inbox, I don't want to type it all out again. Basically it doesn't matter if I think it is stupid or not, especially with digital mediums which are still complex under the law and finding legal footing, it is important to establish precedents to decide what is legal for companies to do. We can throw the EULA around all day, but the courts could decide that the EULA is bunk if they wanted to.

Yeah this is me blatantly being a dick

I guess are judges aren't retarded as yours

Well that isn't very nice at all. It isn't really the judges fault, it isn't like they get to pick and choose what cases people decide to bring into the court system.

 

[Danpascooch]

I would definitely sue the gun maker if that kid was working for the gun maker, and was on the job when he shot the other kid.

She was suing the company the kid who made that dangerous coffee was working for when it was served, so your analogies don't make any sense. It was 100% justified.

And i assume your american? Yep.....okay. I just can't seem to get through gimme a few days and i will find a Video of Glenn Beck saying what i am then maybe you will understand....Yeah this is me blatantly being a dick only because you seem to think Suing is Justified at EVERY FUCKING TURN! You know what i love about being Canadian? We only sue when we come to real harm. You know how many people have probably spilled Tim Hortons Coffee Burning themselves only to go back and get a Free new one? I guess are judges aren't retarded as yours. All this does is remind me of the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer sued the Coffee Shop.

I like how instead of trying to counter my argument you attack my character.

BTW, I hate Glen Beck, I think he's a fear-mongering nutjob asshole.

And don't even THINK of trying to portray me as a violent or vindictive person after all of your "Everyone who eats at mcdonalds should be shot in the face" crap.

Also, when did I say suing is justified at every turn? I think when serious bodily harm is incurred it can help companies take responsibility and be more careful. So instead of spouting nationalist discriminatory crap, and dealing in absolutes, try being logical

And again, if third degree burns aren't "real harm" what the hell is?

I am American, but at least I don't hold your country of origin against you like you do with unrelated discrimination.

 

[Danpascooch]

I would definitely sue the gun maker if that kid was working for the gun maker, and was on the job when he shot the other kid.

She was suing the company the kid who made that dangerous coffee was working for when it was served, so your analogies don't make any sense. It was 100% justified.

And i assume your american? Yep.....okay. I just can't seem to get through gimme a few days and i will find a Video of Glenn Beck saying what i am then maybe you will understand....Yeah this is me blatantly being a dick only because you seem to think Suing is Justified at EVERY FUCKING TURN! You know what i love about being Canadian? We only sue when we come to real harm. You know how many people have probably spilled Tim Hortons Coffee Burning themselves only to go back and get a Free new one? I guess are judges aren't retarded as yours. All this does is remind me of the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer sued the Coffee Shop.

I like how instead of trying to counter my argument you attack my character.

BTW, I hate Glen Beck, I think he's a fear-mongering nutjob asshole.

And don't even THINK of trying to portray me as a violent or vindictive person after all of your "Everyone who eats at mcdonalds should be shot in the face" crap.

Also, when did I say suing is justified at every turn? I think when serious bodily harm is incurred it can help companies take responsibility and be more careful. So instead of spouting nationalist discriminatory crap, and dealing in absolutes, try being logical

And again, if third degree burns aren't "real harm" what the hell is?

I am American, but at least I don't hold your country of origin against you like you do with unrelated discrimination.

Serious Bodily Harm at a Coffee....Yeah i woulda Sued the shit out of Mc Donalds for that. Hey lets get someone who's allergic to peanuts to eat some from mcdonalds and sue them for giving him nuts. I never claimed to not be violent. I just think that in your earlier posts you yourself said its up to us to make sure corporations don't blah blah blah, which to most people would see it as "If you don't like what they are doing, Rise up against them". Mcdonalds Served hot Coffee. Good. I've had water at BOILING temperatures on my before and didn't get burned so this old coot should have been fine. But nope. She sued. What did she have it between her legs wearing a miniskirt? Then drove and burned herself. She should have sued the Car company then. I can come back and say Coffee is Hot a hundred Million times. then another hundred million times. I can continue to say it but it seems your Ignorance is taking a Huge amount of your thought. Now if the guy handed her coffee and spilled it on her then i could see a suing being plausible but thats not the case. So i leave it with this. I don't care what you think. Your opinion is wrong and means nothing to me. The lady was wrong. And this dumbass suing sony is wrong. IF i do reply i will post 3 words 100 times. Fair warning to you that you now bore me more so then when this started. I already proved you wrong on the Sony thing so why try to argue?

Also i think the entire Human Race should be exterminated not just people who eat mcdonalds

Your post is so full of understatements I can't continue this discussion.

You've shown tendencies for both violence and idiocy, not to mention bigotry toward residents of the United States. and I don't think it would be a good idea to continue trying to present logical evidence while being viewed by you through a lens of nationalistic discrimination and violence.

So think whatever you want, you seem to think companies should be allowed to go wild and hurt people, I believe in accountability, and we'll never see eye to eye.

EDIT: And BTW, that coffee that was served was over boiling temperature, it was kept under pressure when stored so it wouldn't boil even though it was over boil temp.