By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 13 April 2011
Edit Thread
ssj12 said:
forest-spirit said:
Kasz216 said:
padib said:

 

@kasz  hey, do you have a link to the OtherOS case?


A few articles on it, that's it

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110218181557455

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110311112544990

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110310172538157

 

Also one on the settlment

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110411173644425

From the first article:

"For example, when discussing the motion to strike, Sony spoke first, and here's the interchange with the judge:

MS. SACKS: Nothing that is alleged anywhere in the complaint says anything about the duration, the longevity of the time in which the other OS function or, for that matter, any particular aggregate of features of the PS3 would be available.

THE COURT: Why then are we making the assumption that it must terminate at a certain point?

They're saying it's an ongoing representation; that without any termination date that you will always have the OS function. You're saying, well, they are not saying one way or the other what the time period is.

Why do we assume that it terminates?

MS. SACKS: Well, Your Honor, a manufacturer's obligation for anything having to do with a product itself is only defined by its express warranty, its express promises.

If SCEA, Sony, had said, "We guarantee that the other OS function would be supported," if they said, "We guarantee PlayStation Network access will always be available," anything about the duration, plaintiffs might have an argument. The only thing that Sony told anyone about the duration of any feature of the PS3 is what it said in the one year express limited hardware warranty. It said "one year."

And as the Daughtery case, as the Bardin case, and as subsequent federal court authorities have noted, where something arises after the duration of that promised one year, the purchaser can have no expectation.

So, Your Honor, if the purchaser can have no expectation of the PlayStation 3 functioning at all after the expiration of that one-year warranty, how can it somehow have a greater expectation about the availability of one feature? If SCEA cannot have liability under California law for the PS3 completely failing to perform after one year, how can it have liability for the fact that it does 99 percent of what it was advertised to do, and just not one?"

 

Did I read this wrong or are they saying that after 1 year you can no longer expect any feature to be available? So after 1 year I actually have no right to expect my PS3 to play games? The hell?

What am I missing???


nope, your entirely right. Sadly people are blind and will think its a good thing PS3 owners get features removed.

Trophies, in-game menus, home, and the friends list can be removed now I guess. They are all over a year old now, so by Sony's logic they can expire and no one will care. I want them to test this theory.

They are only using this argument for the removal of one feature.  They wouldn't dream of removing those other  features because it would lose them business.  However, OtherOS was used by maybe 1% of PS3 owners, and helped provide a gateway into the PS3 security, which Geohot was already starting to exploit to hack the PS3.  Sony weighed their options and felt removing it was the best option.  And obviously the majority don't care, or fear Sony will become some overbearing company, because the PS3 has been outselling both the Wii and the 360 so far this year.

And I may be wrong, but I don't think I've seen you on these boards blasting every company who shuts down the servers to their online multiplayer?  I mean that feature was promised on the packaging.  So a company should continue to support those servers, even if hardly anyone uses them or if it will cost them more than they make.  Or a developer should be boycotted if they change a gameplay feature/exploit through a patch that the majority wanted changed, but the minority liked, even at the cost of sales.  I mean it just wouldn't be "fair."  I guess we should be boycotting every single developer/company then.