Support NeoGAF

[Danny Dudekisser]

Advertised =/= put in trailers or written on a box. If you, as a company, make a statement about the product (and SONY stated OtherOS was a feature), that counts.

No, that's at best a misrepresentation, and not enough of one to win in court over.

 

[Apath]

So in theory could Sony (or Nintendo/Microsoft) disable the ability to play games on the system and not be held liable?

 

[H_Prestige]

So what if Windows gave you the choice of being able to run games or have internet access or something like that? You'd be fine with it? You paid for a product, and then parts of the product are forcibly taken from you?

No. Why does that make it a legal problem?

 

[Suairyu]

See above as in... the post that confirms that it was not advertised anywhere on the box?

And you have skewed the facts to make it look like there's false advertising present here when there is not.

Why are you obsessed with 'on the box'? SONY stated OtherOS was a feature of the PS3 and they did not once rescind that statement until years after your purchase.

Thus, OtherOS being included would be a part of a PS3 "as advertised". Advertisements do not mean marketing materials or bullet points on the back of a box, though it may include those things.

No, that's at best a misrepresentation, and not enough of one to win in court over.

... misrepresenting a product is exactly what false advertising is. Making a claim about a product, you purchasing that product then rescinding that claim after the purchase has been made. Why are you arguing it is anything but?

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Why are you obsessed with 'on the box'? SONY stated OtherOS was a feature of the PS3 and they did not once rescind that statement until years after your purchase.

Thus, OtherOS being included would be a part of a PS3 "as advertised". Advertisements do not mean marketing materials or bullet points on the back of a box, though it may include those things.

Where? Where did they state this? Please tell me.

 

[chaosblade]

So in theory could Sony (or Nintendo/Microsoft) disable the ability to play games on the system and not be held liable?

Based on this precedent, yes.

But they would probably treat that differently and say there was reasonable cause to expect the system to have that feature even after the warranty period.

 

[Reallink]

Next year, Firmware will "patch out" your televisions ability to display any kind of image or video on the grounds that they were actually selling a piece of ornamental furniture for your living room, and you have no right to expect it to actually display any content beyond the warranty period. Legal system in a corpocracy, gotta love it.

 

[test_account]

So basically, it wasn't advertised. Gotcha.

At least as far as i know I never saw any commercials for OtherOS at least.

If I say an apple has a diamond for its core, but don't make a TV commercial about it or put it on a box containing the apple, I'm still obligated to provide that diamond core if you then purchase that apple on the understanding it has one else I am obligated instead to give you a full refund.

That is why i said that it was adverticed in the sense that the feature was mentioned, i just answered the question when people asked if it was adverticed

Sure, but you did get the product when you bought it. The question is more about if the Terms of Service that you agreed to are legal or not in the country you live in.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

... misrepresenting a product is exactly what false advertising is. Making a claim about a product, you purchasing that product then rescinding that claim after the purchase has been made. Why are you arguing it is anything but?

Misrepresentation is an aspect of false advertising, but the two are not the same thing. I'm saying there was no advertisement.

 

[Suairyu]

Where? Where did they state this? Please tell me.

Is this a joke? How on earth do you think people found out about the feature before the product was launched if it wasn't stated? Why do you think there was a court case in the first place?

Moreover, that the feature existed and you then purchased the PS3 while that feature existed in full knowledge that such a feature existed is by itself a problem for SONY removing the feature at a later date. It'd be like you buying a car from Ford, Ford later coming to your house and removing the steering wheel and then some jackass on a forum going "where did they state or advertise (ON THE BOX?!?) that the car included a steering wheel?"

BUT

BUT

Because you're continuing to be an absolute ass about this.

Here is one time they said it. You can find many more by visiting Google.

"it was fully intended that you, a PS3 owner, could play games, watch movies, view photos, listen to music, and run a full-featured Linux operating system that transforms your PS3 into a home computer."

OH ACTUALLY, wait a moment. Let's quote SONY's website itself:

Install Other OS
This feature is not available on the CECH-2000 series systems.

Install other system software on the hard disk. For information on types of compatible system software and obtaining the installer, visit Open Platform for PlayStation®3.

With instructions right there.

Misrepresentation is an aspect of false advertising, but the two are not the same thing. I'm saying there was no advertisement.

They made statements. Instructions for installing the feature is on their website. It was physically available as an option on the PS3 itself at the time when most people purchased it. That doesn't count as advertising to you?

 

[Mxrz]

Still waiting on some car analogies come in, or was that the used games bit? I get them confused.

They tried something new, and they learned that someone somewhere will try to fuck you for it. Gonna bet the PS4 and Vita will be locked up tighter than some humorous euphemism. Might be selfish, but it is something I didn't use, and that could've one day been used to grief me on the PSN in some form. Hard to feel the outrage, to be honest.

 

[ShdwDrake]

If I say an apple has a diamond for its core, but don't make a TV commercial about it or put it on a box containing the apple, I'm still obligated to provide that diamond core if you then purchase that apple on the understanding it has one else I am obligated instead to give you a full refund.

Advertised =/= put in trailers or written on a box. If you, as a company, make a statement about the product (and SONY stated OtherOS was a feature), that counts.

Doesn't count. Look up the definition of "advertising". In order for it to be false advertising it has to be false in a mass market sense where its easily noticed by the public like a commercial, billboard, etc.

Also I'm pretty sure Sony is protected due to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if they have probable cause that other OS is indeed a security risk which they seem to have.

 

[zeelman]

Its really unfortunate that companies can get away with stuff like this. This and several other reasons are why I will not be buying any Sony systems in the future.

 

[ShdwDrake]

Is this a joke? How on earth do you think people found out about the feature before the product was launched if it wasn't stated? Why do you think there was a court case in the first place?

Moreover, that the feature existed and you then purchased the PS3 while that feature existed in full knowledge that such a feature existed is by itself a problem for SONY removing the feature at a later date. It'd be like you buying a car from Ford, Ford later coming to your house and removing the steering wheel and then some jackass on a forum going "where did they state or advertise (ON THE BOX?!?) that the car included a steering wheel?"

BUT

BUT

Because you're continuing to be an absolute ass about this.

Here is one time they said it. You can find many more by visiting Google.



OH ACTUALLY, wait a moment. Let's quote SONY's website itself:
With instructions right there.

But thats not an advertisement. Yeah misrepresentation but not an advertisement. Also you as the buyer are subject to the TOS in order to play games, etc etc on they system. The thing that the court is saying is the same thing that I'm wondering how can Sony be held liable if you in fact agreed to a ToS that says that ToS is subject to change.

 

[Suairyu]

But thats not an advertisement.

No, it isn't; not in the sense you're using it. But it is "goods as advertised".

"My product contains features x, y and z" - statement.

Providing said product, taking money for it, then it not having features y and z = goods not provided as advertised.

 

[ShdwDrake]

No, it isn't; not in the sense you're using it. But it is "goods as advertised".

"My product contains features x, y and z" - statement.

Providing said product, taking money for it, then it not having features y and z = goods not provided as advertised.

Also you as the buyer are subject to the TOS in order to play games, etc etc on they system. The thing that the court is saying is the same thing that I'm wondering how can Sony be held liable if you in fact agreed to a ToS that says that ToS is subject to change.

.

 

[Apath]

Its really unfortunate that companies can get away with stuff like this. This and several other reasons are why I will not be buying any Sony systems in the future.

Look at it from Sony's perspective though: Other OS represented a large security risk for their multi-billion dollar investment. What else could they have done besides remove Other OS?

 

[cheststrongwell]

I don't blame Sony, I blame hackers. Fuck them.

 

[Sportbilly]

Look at it from Sony's perspective though: Other OS represented a large security risk for their multi-billion dollar investment. What else could they have done besides remove Other OS?

Fix it?

 

[staticneuron]

Or let's put it in even simpler terms!

Two advertised features of the PS3 that became contractual obligations on the part of SONY the moment you paid for the product (goods must always function as advertised at the time of sale):

- The ability to play PS3 games
- The ability to install OtherOS

Then they say, years later, they are going to remove one and you get to pick.

It's a really clear-cut case of failure to provide purchased goods as advertised. I honestly don't know how it's possible for a judge to fuck up and see it as anything else.


I have absolutely no idea what you mean by the word 'convenient' in the context you used it. Unless you mean in the literal sense in which case thank you and you're welcome to use that restatement for your own purposes.

I'll state this again. No where on the official advertisements or even on the outside of the box did sony state that otherOS was sold with the system. The pS3 still has the ability to play PS3 games if you choose not to update BUT each game comes with their own eula and specific distinction. What you are really complaining about is not being able to play "new" games, which your PS3 can do but you need to sacrifice a feature to do so.
So the main points is having access indefinitely. Again since otherOS was never really officially advertised (that claim was dismissed), and there is no reasonable expectation to play new games, watch blu ray or access PSN without ever having to update. Then there is nothing that holds water in the complaint.

Fix it?

They did..... by removing the feature.

 

[faceless007]

Sounds like the judge was sympathetic but the plantiff did a horrible job making a legal case. Is it possible a new plantiff could make a better argument?

 

[Live Free or Die]

This is good news.

 

[cheststrongwell]

What were the advantages of OtherOS? I never tried it.

 

[Suairyu]

Yeah, ShdwDrake, TOS statements along the lines of "terms subject to change" aren't do what you want, get out of jail free cards for companies, just like most of the content of your average EULA isn't actually legally defensible in court.

TOS cannot breach local law. And considering you are only capable of agreeing to the TOS after you have made your purchase in full for the PS3, it's even more difficult to defend such a radical change.

What really gets me here isn't that you're arguing the legal sense of "well maybe this is why the judge thought this", but more that you seem to be totally okay with completely anti-consumer behaviour here and accepting it as fact SONY was well within their rights to do this. It's staggering.

What were the advantages of OtherOS? I never tried it.

To my knowledge, very few. It was a gimped implementation of Linux and you didn't have access to the whole system.

Again since otherOS was never really officially advertised (that claim was dismissed)

And I take issue with the dismissal. Do repeated claims by a corporation only become 'official' once they're gilded in a million dollar TV commercial?

I may be ignorant here to American law - please enlighten me onto any ridiculous specifics that say you can disregard statements by people of authority within a company speaking on behalf of the company as incorrect or unofficial when no such counter-claims are made by anyone else in the company as correction.

 

[chaosblade]

This is good news.

No, it really, really isn't.

Seeborg found the plaintiffs could not prove that they had a right to expect the OS feature beyond Sony's warranty period or continued access to the Playstation Network (PSN).

This is not a precedent we want to set going forward.

 

[Oppo]

Look at it from Sony's perspective though: Other OS represented a large security risk for their multi-billion dollar investment. What else could they have done besides remove Other OS?

This is the crux of it.

It's not just about a corporation removing a feature after the fact; it's about the perception (whether true or not, I don't have the acumen to judge) that this was done in reaction to a security threat to their platform.

That part is key.

 

[DR2K]

Well done Sony, you pulled off something despicable and got away with it.

Yep, and they're going to keep on doing it in the future.

 

[Zomba13]

This is good news.

I guess if you like companies taking away features from your stuff it is.

 

[EGG]

I just love to watch people support corporations that show time and again they don't actually care at all about their consumers.

 

[davepoobond]

They made statements. Instructions for installing the feature is on their website. It was physically available as an option on the PS3 itself at the time when most people purchased it. That doesn't count as advertising to you?

how many times have companies left antiquated pieces of information or things that were wrong on their web site? what about a store that doesn't list its hours correctly?

is that "false" advertising? no. you are broadening the definition of advertising to be all-encompassing and you might as well say that anything that corresponds to the PS3 in any fashion can be construed as advertising if Sony did/said it. What about a PS3 that has 4 usb ports? what about the boomerang controller?

is that considered false advertising too? none of those are available to purchase.


Sony didn't force anyone to update their console to remove OtherOS. PSN access is a free service, and access to it is dependent on Sony's terms. If you don't want to adhere to their rules, you're more than welcome to not partake.


and all of this is less about being "pro-consumer" vs "anti-consumer." Rulings like this affect everyone, and you should be glad they dismissed it rather than actually making a ruling on it.

 

[Sportbilly]

It's unbelievable that people are actually defending Sony on this. What's the matter with you? I can't help but think if the product in question was anything other than a games console, it wouldn't generate such self-defeating 'logic'.

Think about it for a minute- you bought something and due to a mistake by the manufacturer, one of its capabilities was later hobbled. Regardless of whether you used or were even aware of the functionality, how on earth can this be good for you?

 

[Apath]

This is the crux of it.

It's not just about a corporation removing a feature after the fact; it's about the perception (whether true or not, I don't have the acumen to judge) that this was done in reaction to a security threat to their platform.

That part is key.

I see what you're saying.

I have no real knowledge, whatsoever, on this topic. I just can't imagine Sony doing something that would harm their public image unless it were absolutely necessary. So I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Suairyu]

is that "false" advertising? no. you are broadening the definition of advertising to be all-encompassing and you might as well say that anything that corresponds to the PS3 in any fashion can be construed as advertising if Sony did/said it. What about a PS3 that has 4 usb ports? what about the boomerang controller?

is that considered false advertising too?

No? At the time of purchase, that was not the product as advertised.

At the time of puchase, OtherOS being a feature was a part of the PS3. You paid for a product that could provide that feature. At no point did you pay for a product that could provide a boomarang controller and if you purchased a later system with the reduced amount of USB ports, at no point did SONY state the system in particular that you were purchasing would have those four USB ports.

 

[Pandaman]

So in theory could Sony (or Nintendo/Microsoft) disable the ability to play games on the system and not be held liable?

No, they cant forcibly disable anything that already works. People are just getting hung up on updating as part of a requirement for purchasing and running new games.

if you cant meet the requirements to play a new game, dont buy the new game.

 

[test_account]

Based on this precedent, yes.

But they would probably treat that differently and say there was reasonable cause to expect the system to have that feature even after the warranty period.

Just wondering, what is the precedent in this case?

It's unbelievable that people are actually defending Sony on this. What's the matter with you? I can't help but think if the product in question was anything other than a games console, it wouldn't generate such self-defeating 'logic'.

Think about it for a minute- you bought something and due to a mistake by the manufacturer, one of its capabilities was later hobbled. Regardless of whether you used or were even aware of the functionality, how on earth can this be good for you?

I guess thats the thing, it was a mistake and they wanted to fix it. The only way (who knows) to fix it was to remove it. People put their own needs aside and have understanding for why it was removed.

 

[frankie_baby]

i dont own a ps3 but this is a bull shit ruling, i hope there's someone trying to sue them in the uk or europe there's no way they could get away with it here

 

[Professor Beef]

I thought legal precedents could only be made when an actual ruling was made, and not when a case was dismissed. Or am I just being swept up by the reactions here?

 

[davepoobond]

No? At the time of purchase, that was not the product as advertised.

At the time of puchase, OtherOS being a feature was a part of the PS3. You paid for a product that could provide that feature. At no point did you pay for a product that could provide a boomarang controller and if you purchased a later system with the reduced amount of USB ports, at no point did SONY state the system in particular that you were purchasing would have those four USB ports.

what about the initial spec sheets that were released? it said 4 USB ports on there. all of the pictures that i saw for the PS3 before I bought it had 4 USB ports.

and thats exactly what im getting at -- at no point was the boomerang controller available yet it was used to market the PS3 until it was "redesigned."

OtherOS was available until the PS3 was "redesigned" from a firmware perspective. You already HAD OtherOS. If you wanted to keep it you didn't have to update it -- that is the main reason why there is no claim here.

I never had the boomerang controller, they didnt take it away and give me something worse. I never had that to begin with. What I'm getting at is that its the same in the end -- something that was advertised that is "not available" anymore.

If I had bought a boomerang controller there is nothing that Sony could have done to take it away from me. If I had OtherOS and wanted to keep it, there was nothing Sony could have done to take it away from me. It was voluntarily updating your system firmware that removed the feature.

I thought legal precedents could only be made when an actual ruling was made, and not when a case was dismissed. Or am I just being swept up by the reactions here?

Yes, that is true, afaik.

It's unbelievable that people are actually defending Sony on this. What's the matter with you? I can't help but think if the product in question was anything other than a games console, it wouldn't generate such self-defeating 'logic'.

Think about it for a minute- you bought something and due to a mistake by the manufacturer, one of its capabilities was later hobbled. Regardless of whether you used or were even aware of the functionality, how on earth can this be good for you?

its a situational basis. There was nothing that Sony did to force you to remove the feature -- the act of updating, which YOU had to initiate, was the catalyst. If you didn't want to lose it, then don't upgrade... I don't see how it is so mind boggling for you to take this in context.

 

[faceless007]

It's funny that people are using what's on the box as a standard for what should be expected. The boxes for Apple iPods list literally no features of the product. I guess Apple could remove the ability to play music and I couldn't complain because, well, it's not on the box.

 

[Suairyu]

what about the initial spec sheets that were released? it said 4 USB ports on there. all of the pictures that i saw for the PS3 before I bought it had 4 USB ports.

You clearly don't understand the concept of as advertised. This is more akin to you buying a system with four usb ports, then SONY coming around two years later and saying either you can't play new games or they are removing two of the USB ports already there.

I guess thats the thing, it was a mistake and they wanted to fix it. The only way (who knows) to fix it was to remove it. People put their own needs aside and have understanding for why it was removed.

"That jacket I sold you a couple of years ago? Yeah, well, I realise now the left sleeve was a mistake. It cost me too much money. And hey, listen, I never put on a box that the left sleeve would be included, and if you look inside the lining of the jacket there is a TOS that you agreed to that states the jacket is subject to change at any time. So I'm taking that left sleeve back, and, uh, well I'm not going to give you a refund either. But it's because it was a mistake, realise. You need to put your own needs aside and have an understanding for why it is being removed."

Yeah, done here. Bye.

 

[Massa]

I guess thats the thing, it was a mistake and they wanted to fix it. The only way (who knows) to fix it was to remove it. People put their own needs aside and have understanding for why it was removed.

It was pretty damn stupid of Sony to remove the feature. It was only present in older systems to begin with (fat PS3's), so even if it was the backdoor to a hack (which it wasn't) then it would still have a very small effect on their userbase.

It was just one of the many boneheaded decisions made by Sony management in the last 5 years.

 

[Emitan]

"That jacket I sold you a couple of years ago? Yeah, well, I realise now the left sleeve was a mistake. It cost me too much money. And hey, listen, I never put on a box that the left sleeve would be included, and if you look inside the lining of the jacket there is a TOS that you agreed to that states the jacket is subject to change at any time. So I'm taking that left sleeve back, and, uh, well I'm not going to give you a refund either. But it's because it was a mistake, realise. You need to put your own needs aside and have an understanding for why it is being removed."

Yeah, done here. Bye.

They can keep the left sleeve if they give up wearing pants.

 

[Pandaman]

"That jacket I sold you a couple of years ago? Yeah, well, I realise now the left sleeve was a mistake. It cost me too much money. And hey, listen, I never put on a box that the left sleeve would be included, and if you look inside the lining of the jacket there is a TOS that you agreed to that states the jacket is subject to change at any time. So I'm taking that left sleeve back, and, uh, well I'm not going to give you a refund either. But it's because it was a mistake, realise. You need to put your own needs aside and have an understanding for why it is being removed."

Yeah, done here. Bye.

If you weren't so emotional about this, you could probably figure out the problems with your own analogies and save yourself a lot of time.

 

[Uno Venova]

From what I understand that was making it easier for hackers to breach the system and they had no choice but to take it out, security measure. Can't get upset about that.

 

[Emitan]

From what I understand that was making it easier for hackers to breach the system and they had no choice but to take it out, security measure. Can't get upset about that.

if they took away the ability to play games you wouldn't be upset about that?

 

[davepoobond]

You clearly don't understand the concept of as advertised. This is more akin to you buying a system with four usb ports, then SONY coming around two years later and saying either you can't play new games or they are removing two of the USB ports already there.

oh, what, like Rock Band, that needs 3 USB ports?

if they took away the ability to play games you wouldn't be upset about that?

who in their right mind would update? NONE OF THE UPDATES ON THE PS3 ARE AUTO-UPDATE.

 

[dani_dc]

What a shame. I'm more curious about the European case, I can't see the same thing happening in Europe.

its a situational basis. There was nothing that Sony did to force you to remove the feature -- the act of updating, which YOU had to initiate, was the catalyst. If you didn't want to lose it, then don't upgrade... I don't see how it is so mind boggling for you to take this in context.

But if you don't update you lose the ability to play new PS3 games, so Sony gave you two options:
a) Lose Other OS
b) Lose the ability to play new PS3 games

So yes, you had a choice, to choose which feature you would be unable to use, either way they're taking away a feature.

 

[Pandaman]

if they took away the ability to play games you wouldn't be upset about that?

but they didn't do anything remotely comparable to that. they offered you a cost for continued service and updated the requirements for new games. nothing you had already was lost unless you chose to lose it.

 

[Sportbilly]

I guess thats the thing, it was a mistake and they wanted to fix it. The only way (who knows) to fix it was to remove it. People put their own needs aside and have understanding for why it was removed.

You're kidding, right? I have absolutely no love for Microsoft, but can you imagine this rationale applied to Windows or Office after all the security problems they've encountered? Fuck understanding, I paid my money in good faith for your product.

 

[Emitan]

but they didn't do anything remotely comparable to that.

they removed linux support