By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - sony's illegal business practice!!!!!!!

joeorc on 05 April 2010
bxnytony said:

there was no court ruling as it was a different system with different capabilities and therefore is met with different guidelines. how do u have a court ruling with no case? u do realize a judge can't say oh we ruled it once so every product from here on out is the same thing. each product receives separatre ruling. also i live in america not the uk. we have separate  laws here. according to fcc and sec finings when sony originally introduced the product it was classified a s a computer system. due to its unique architecture and ability for os install it was allowed to be categorized as a computer system. the instal other os was a key point in how sony got away with it. note no previous video game system has had the ability for optional install and because of this they couldnt be classified as anything but. the ps3 is unique. it is NOT a single function unit. yes the xbox360 also has multimedia cappabilities but it is restrictive to the xbox format. hence it is a video game system with mm capabilities. the ps3 is classified as a computer system with video game capabilities. 

once again prove Sony filed it that way.

OL GOD IT'S ALWAY'S BEEN NAMED:

Sony Computer entertainment!

according to fcc and sec finings:

stop right there

ONCE AGAIN PROVE IT'S FILED UNDER AS A PC and not as a GAME Console

 

"
there was no court ruling as it was a different system with different capabilities and therefore is met with different guidelines"

 

no it's not.

is the playstation 3 a game console?

yes or no?

is it sold in the game console section in stores?

is the playstation 3 sold in the computer section of computer stores like for example:

Microcenter ?

Microcenter do sell PS3's in what section is it sold in their store?

the game console section!

just as i thought you cannot prove your statement, the fact that for 5 year's Sony tryed to get the PLAYSTATION PLATFORM ruled as a PC and it failed. the Playstation Platform is by UK law a game console.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Around the Network
joeorc on 05 April 2010
bxnytony said:

ok they do give full disclosure but by rejecting the new agreement and not updating u r also rejecting the part saying u will be blocked for not updating. ask ur lawyer friends about it. u cant implement stipulations should someone refuse to agree as they are not accepting the update or being banned.

yes you can. if it's for compatability!

any ps3 phat not compatable with the NEW FIRMWARE 3.21 would not be compatable with the PSN or some of the new Game's it's been that way ever since, if i purchased a game that say required a new firmware the disc had that on there and i could not play it unless i updated the firmware. I know it's to retain compatability.for example when you sign a new lease, they can change thing's in the lease, every new firmware has a disclaimer what it does with the update.

once again full disclosure..you cannot claim you are getting something removed if they are asking your consent first.

the fact you as the consumer can indeed refuse is the big point. you can say no, thus it is indeed not

Mandatory.

the fact that PSN requires the new firmware for compatability due to security can be stated in order for the the playstation 3 phat's to be compliant for compatability on the PSN and some new game's for the Playstation 3 phat's to be compatable. with the PSN or some of the game's prior to the 3.21 update any pre 3.21 software rquired software will still run offline just not on PSN due to your Playstation 3 phat not being compatable with the PSN's security unless you update it's security .

like i stated you can still have it just not on PSN.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

cmeese47 on 05 April 2010

What is everyone using the OS for that this topic is getting so much crying heck this topic has been so overblown you would think Sony has its own RROD or something crippling half of their systems. My ps3 still plays games surfs the internet and does what I want it to do without OS get over it you wont win.



oldschoolfool on 05 April 2010
cmeese47 said:
What is everyone using the OS for that this topic is getting so much crying heck this topic has been so overblown you would think Sony has its own RROD or something crippling half of their systems. My ps3 still plays games surfs the internet and does what I want it to do without OS get over it you wont win.


no trolling please



joeorc on 05 April 2010
cmeese47 said:
What is everyone using the OS for that this topic is getting so much crying heck this topic has been so overblown you would think Sony has its own RROD or something crippling half of their systems. My ps3 still plays games surfs the internet and does what I want it to do without OS get over it you wont win.

its not about that, its about wanting people to stand up for consumer rights, while i agree that its a raw deal what Sony did, it is also standing up for consumer's rights is also what Sony is doing also. the consumer's have the right to log on a secure network without the fear of the credit card or personal information getting stolen, Sony is trying to keep that from happening. there is two side's to this argument, whie I can see both Side's argument's merit's. I think both side's are looking out for the protection of consumer's right's. both are very important.

and what happen's when one side's consumer right's get walked on no one should be happy about it.

this is a raw deal all around.

which is why i stated Geohot need's a good swift quick kick in the junk. for causing all this mess.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Around the Network
yinkadare on 05 April 2010
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
thranx said:
emo_parker said:
What a waste of internet space this guy is..

Lets sue Microsoft for removing the old blade interface.

Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

You must not understand what this is about. It is about consumers getting what is advertised. Using other OS was advertised as someting the ps3 could do, and was touted as an attribute to the ps3. The blade interface was not, neither was the old psn store, both of which you have substitutes for mind you. This about something being taken away from a system that may have been the reason a person bought it. very different from what you said

AND IT STILL CAN!

if you choose not to update you can still use linux...yes or No?

if you choose not too do you still have the function of Linux..yes or no?

Has sony informed the Owner's of the Phat PS3 what they would loose access too before they decide to not update ..yes or no?

the point being is Sony is covered. it's still as advertised, with changes's to How OTHER OS FUNCTION WORK'S! it works prior to 3.21

before there was not CON's to using Linux. On the PS3, Now there is due to security concern's which Sony did tell the consumer before they released this update to be used or not used.

the point is how much does Linux mean to you

if its very important, than do not update. and you still get to keep Linux.

so sony is not forcing the consumer to update, you can choose not too therefore it's still work's as advertised.

Stop spinning and defending Sony, THEY ARE FORCING people to choose Other OS or potentially kill their PS3 for gaming.  This is forcing people to choose, therefor it is a forced decision.  Fair enough if you don't think its a big issue but the fact remains this is a mandatory update if you want PSN right now and in the future it will be mandatory for new games.  Pros and cons don't matter to a consumer, a feature that was present on their console when bought is being taken away, that is WRONG.

That's no different than companies putting in anti-piracy features to force people to purchase games instead of burning them.  Let's sue those companies for forcing people to actually pay for games instead of pirating them!



yinkadare on 05 April 2010
bxnytony said:
oh another quick note for my adoring followers. those of us who purchased a ps3 "phat" did not purchase a video game system. we bought a computer. at least according to sony. see when they first introduced the product to market it was expressly labeled as a computer to avoid the increased tax placed on video game systems. the validation for this was....any guesses...the ability to install another os which pushed it beyond just a video game system. it is labeled as such in their own fcc and sec filings. so for those of u saying oh just buy a computer I DID. also by removing other os they are again violating anti competition laws. just ask microsoft. by removing this feature they are limiting me from using alternate web browsers and media players on my "computer system". this was case just recently lost by microsoft for trying to prevent web browsers other than internet explorer form being bundled with windows and therefore limiting the ability opf competitor's to obtain market share. guess what sony is doing the same thing.

Actually, I bought the phat as a game system.  I had no interest in using it as a computer.  It plays PS3 games and blu-ray movies as advertised.  That's all I care about.



joeorc on 05 April 2010
yinkadare said:
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
thranx said:
emo_parker said:
What a waste of internet space this guy is..

Lets sue Microsoft for removing the old blade interface.

Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

You must not understand what this is about. It is about consumers getting what is advertised. Using other OS was advertised as someting the ps3 could do, and was touted as an attribute to the ps3. The blade interface was not, neither was the old psn store, both of which you have substitutes for mind you. This about something being taken away from a system that may have been the reason a person bought it. very different from what you said

AND IT STILL CAN!

if you choose not to update you can still use linux...yes or No?

if you choose not too do you still have the function of Linux..yes or no?

Has sony informed the Owner's of the Phat PS3 what they would loose access too before they decide to not update ..yes or no?

the point being is Sony is covered. it's still as advertised, with changes's to How OTHER OS FUNCTION WORK'S! it works prior to 3.21

before there was not CON's to using Linux. On the PS3, Now there is due to security concern's which Sony did tell the consumer before they released this update to be used or not used.

the point is how much does Linux mean to you

if its very important, than do not update. and you still get to keep Linux.

so sony is not forcing the consumer to update, you can choose not too therefore it's still work's as advertised.

Stop spinning and defending Sony, THEY ARE FORCING people to choose Other OS or potentially kill their PS3 for gaming.  This is forcing people to choose, therefor it is a forced decision.  Fair enough if you don't think its a big issue but the fact remains this is a mandatory update if you want PSN right now and in the future it will be mandatory for new games.  Pros and cons don't matter to a consumer, a feature that was present on their console when bought is being taken away, that is WRONG.

That's no different than companies putting in anti-piracy features to force people to purchase games instead of burning them.  Let's sue those companies for forcing people to actually pay for games instead of pirating them!

it's also about compatability if making the security more robust to protect consumer's right's also and yet you have hacker's wanting to make CFW's anyway even without Sony removing OtherOS what's the point in not doing anything. At least this is more protection, some here stated Sony did not have to remove Linux, you know if Linux would have stayed in that it would not pose more of a security risk?.

but geohot already stated he opened it completely up. How do we know?

the point is prevention of further attack's is what Sony went for. with this why would Sony not leave it if Linux was not going to pose more of a threat? It must pose some threat, if they are indeed taking it out.

the line has to be drawn somewhere. I can understand people being pissed about the Other OS function as many are saying " being forced to being removed" But you also have to look at it from, if your system is online and people with mod chiped PS3's which from a perspective has no valid reason for the system to be mod chipped anyway. than what's to stop people from doing other thing's on PSN with those mod chipped PS3's.

 

 



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

r505Matt on 05 April 2010
Darc Requiem said:
C_Hollomon said:
Lets see here. Sony also took away 2 USB ports(use to have 4), PS2 emulation, and SACD(Super Audio CD). So I guess it was illegal to take away these things too right. The OS was taken out the slim PS3 and now Sony want it out the fat PS3. I see nothing illegal about what Sony doing. They did things to cut cost and make sercurity better. More XBL accounts been hacked than PSN. Sony is doing a damn good job in sercurity for PS3 owners. If the PS3 can be hacked through OS then Sony has the right to take it out. If you want to blame someone blame the hackers. Sony wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't for people like the geohot nerd.

I'm looking at my brothers 60GB right now. The only thing currently missing from his system feature wise is the other OS feature. You are comparing apples to oranges. I didn't use Other OS my PS3, neither did my brother. I don't like the precedent this "update" sets. I can't believe how short sighted PS3 owners are being with this. What happens when they take out something you do use?

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.



yinkadare on 05 April 2010
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.