sony's illegal business practice!!!!!!!

[r505Matt]

yinkadare said:

r505Matt said:

 

That's essentially why some of us are annoyed/upset about this. If they can just start taking away features and get away with it, what's to stop them from taking away something we all actually care about?

@joeorc, 

You have shown in numerous threads that you do not listen to reason on this topic. When a product no longer does what was advertised, that is grounds for false advertising (read and understand this before you move on, it's very important). I understand why Sony did what they did, and I'm pretty sure they thought this was the cheaper option in the end, but that doesn't make it legal. There are legitimate grounds for legal action. In the end, it depends on the decision of the court it is brought to. The only way I can see them getting away with it is if they can prove there is a serious security risk in the removed feature. They can't just make assumptions though, they'd pretty much have to "show their work" so to speak, and show exactly how it poses a security risk. If they do that, they can get away with it, but it would also reveal security flaws in their system that I'm not sure they want to reveal. This is also assuming a justice system that works, but that's a different matter altogether.

Saying the update is optional is ridiculous (not to mention everything in life is optional, it's all semantics). The PS3 was advertised as having a set of features, and now people are forced to choose features. Either, keep the Other OS option, or be able to play/watch the newest games/movies and access PSN. Now, you get either PS3 with 1 set of features, or a PS3 with another set of features, but all of them were advertised. 

I expect the full package when I buy a product. If I bought a phone, and later found out I could keep either the camera, or access the internet, I'd be pretty pissed. How bout you? If you bought a product, and eventually had to choose between a few advertised features, wouldn't you be annoyed/angry/upset yourself? Just because it's not a feature you use or care about doesn't mean it's not important. This sets a dangerous precedent.

Again, I reiterate, there are grounds for a false advertisement/bait and switch case. That does not mean that the courts will surely find Sony guilty of false advertisement, but they might, and I think there's a pretty good chance they could. But law is all about semantics and syntax, if you can twist it to your favor, or show legal precedent, you can get around almost anything. That said, I'm mostly talking of US law, I'm even more sure that Sony will get slammed by EU law over this.

Well, like you said, it's all semantics.  It's very easy to make the argument that there's no false advertising involved because at the time Sony advertised the other OS capability, the PS3 did have the function.  As long as Sony stops advertising that from the minute that the firmware came out, they're not false advertising anything.  Remember, Sony never advertised that capability would exist FOREVER and cannot be removed for the sake of security issues or improving the product, only that it is available at the time you buy the PS3 during the duration that they are advertising the capability.  With any product, espcially software and hardware that get routine updates and patches, functionalities get changed, striped down, and even removed all the time.  The PS3 is hardly the first and it will definitely not be the last.  I don't see how any false advertising suit would be able to hold its ground in the court system. 

I'm really not exactly sure how to respond to that logic. It is extremely flawed. The creator of a product cannot advertise it as such, and then remove things after you have bought it. That just screams Anti-Consumer Rights. Otherwise, what's to stop some scam artist from creating phony products and advertise them as having a set of features, then you buy the product, and it does nothing and he says "well, I stopped advertising those features before you bought it, so it's legal". Your logic essentially states that this is okay.

Edit: All said scam artist would have to do is prove the product at one point had the features, and removed them for some bogus reason.

There are different "types" of false advertising, but when you advertise a product, and then someone buys it, the product cannot lose anything between the time of acquisition and the time of failure (if it breaks or whatnot). But, law is not cut and dry, and is thus often used in "what if" situations to see what may be legal or not from a common sense point of view. If you ever check out transcriptions from major corporations going to trial, you may know what I'm talking about. Anyways, what if:

Sony determines that playing blu-ray discs on the PS3 opens up the system to security vulnerabilities. Would it be legal for them to remove that? Or, what if it's playing games? Is that okay too? Or are these not okay because more people care about them? The law exists to protect the minority as well, and just because you and I and most people on this forum don't care about the Other OS option, there are people that do. And some people bought the PS3 knowing that, and expecting to use that as well as being able to play new games, and access PSN. They no longer have the product advertised to them. The product they might not have bought if they knew this would happen. While there may be very few people that fit that, that doesn't make it okay. If there is even one person who feels that way, they can bring it to court.

As I said, unless Sony uses specific details to show that the existence Other OS poses a security risk to the PS3, and I mean very concrete details, the whole "because we say it's not safe" wouldn't fly, then I do believe this could hurt them pretty badly. Just because we have things like firmware updates today doesn't make it okay for companies to do whatever they want.

Further, I've been hearing things (not sure how true it is) that the PS3 was classified as a computer in some parts of the world for cheaper taxes than being classified as a gaming machine? Not sure if this is true, but if so, since the system no longer supports other operating systems, it could lose that classification and get nailed for tax evasion. I'm not sure if it was classified as such, but it could lose that designation from this.

Overall, everyone should be sickened by this move. There is no guarantee that this will stem piracy on PS3, and it just seems like an awful breach of consumer rights. Again, I don't care about the Other OS option whatsoever, but it sickens me that Sony can pull a move like this and SOOO many people here are still 100% on their side. Even if we ignore the legality, it's still sickening.