From Kotaku:
http://kotaku.com/5526847/playstation-3-owner-files-class-action-suit-against-sony-for-dropping-other-os?skyline=true&s=i
What do you think of this Class-Action Suit?
I don't appreciate Sony removing a feature from the system YEARS after I bought it. And I get that it's not part of the Slim feature set. I bought a 60GB in August 2007 because the newer 80GB model wasn't going to have hardware backcompat, but software, which I felt was kinda weak.
Your thoughts?
Sony Nixing OtherOS Feature Class-Action Lawsuit
I laughed. People will sue over anything." From Kotaku:
http://kotaku.com/5526847/playstation-3-owner-files-class-action-suit-against-sony-for-dropping-other-os?skyline=true&s=i What do you think of this Class-Action Suit? I don't appreciate Sony removing a feature from the system YEARS after I bought it. And I get that it's not part of the Slim feature set. I bought a 60GB in August 2007 because the newer 80GB model wasn't going to have hardware backcompat, but software, which I felt was kinda weak. Your thoughts? "
Guy is gonna lose. I am sure Sony checked with their lawyers way before the update and got their legal ducks in a row.
If I know the law correct. You might own a PS3. But you do not own the soft ware. *might be wrong* Inside the PS3 meaning Sony can change it how they wish.
I was pissed when they took out backwards compatibility. There was no way for me to know in stores or anything that it was removed, only if I dug around on the internet. "Oh by the way, we're removing a major component from our system which disables you from playing thousads of games." I actually bought a few games (MGS3 and Okami) thinking they would work but got home and it told me the disc wasn't supported. How was I supposed to know? It's not like I get home and say "Wait a second, I just have to check and see if this major feature is still included in a system I just paid 500 dollars for."
If people are as pissed about this OS thing as I was over the BC thing, I guess I kind of understand.
Removing the feature from consoles that had it originally is a problem, but then I haven't read the EULA for the PS3. It's certainly possible that Sony hedged in the EULA by saying that some features may be removed or modified in the future. It seems a reasonable thing to include in a licensing agreement for a console that has regular feature updates via the net. If something like that phrase is not in the EULA, then Sony will probably lose. For Sony, that would simply mean leaving the feature in place. If it actually is in the EULA that features may be modified and/or removed, then the class action suit can still go forward, but Sony will have a relatively easy time winning such a case.
From a PR perspective, Sony should probably back away from removing the feature. But, then, Sony has a very bad reputation when it comes to these sorts of things (rootkit, anyone?), so I have little hope that PS3 owners will win in the long run either way.
| Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son. |
| Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal. |
| Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Penn., was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. Dickson sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change. |
| Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought after because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. |
| A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. |
| Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses. |
| In November, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago. |
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment