-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I don't believe it for a second, but
- Thread starter linkboy
- Start date
hey_it's_that_dog said:
Sony executives, mainly Phil Harrison and Kutaragi (huh, the two that are gone now...), talked up the linux feature a lot in interviews and trade show speeches. If an executive directly telling people about their product isn't an advertisment, then nothing is.
1. It could be argued fighting piracy and hacking is a benefit to consumers.Neuromancer said:
2. You can't watch porn (censorship) on a certain e-device any longer which advertised internet use as a feature yet no one, to my knowledge, made a "legal fuss" about it.
3. I hope Sony would do what it reasonably could to retain the good will of the customers who used the feature.
PS
This is all for argument's sake only, of course.
A Huge Battleship
Member
This is actually true. My uncle's step-brother's hamster works for Sony and he said that... er...
GoldenEye 007
Member
Depends on the jurisdiction. Verbal contracts are indeed binding in a lot of cases - this is especially simple since it was done in such a public manner by company executives and employees. I really don't see how this is even being debated, other than for "argument's sake." Advertising does not start and stop simply at what is printed on the product box.JWong said:
Where only a few people would care to look. Everyone who buys a PS3 will see the box.shidoshi said:
Yes it does start and stop at what's printed on the box. Are you saying that the verbal press conference promise is a contract? So only those who viewed the press conference have the contract while everyone else is screwed?GoldenEye 007 said:
No, logically makes no sense. Verbal contract has no grounds.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Safe Bet said:
what device can you not watch porn on, i've never heard of such a device?
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
shidoshi said:
That page also says Other OS isn't available under certain circumstances. I wouldn't consider it an advertisement or a promise of any kind.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Yes, a professional lawyer would.surly said:
One of their many interns or whatever would get fired for missing that mistake.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The fact that it was done in a public manner can indeed lead to people buying a product because of said verbal announcement. It is completely irrelevant if a particular user happened to not tune into that specific announcement. The very fact that it was publicly announced and acknowledged as an officially supported feature is plenty - any lawyer could easily shove that in the face of a company.JWong said:
For instance, I would not have any legal grounds if, with my Nexus One, T-Mobile started to charge and/or disabled tethering for my phone. Tethering is not officially acknowledged, supported, or mentioned at any point with them at any level within the company as far as I know. Therefore, I had no prior legitimate reason to buy my phone with tethering in mind.
If, however, T-Mobile offered a step-by-step guide for free tethering on the Nexus One on their website prior to the Nexus One launch, then later rescinded that feature for all users, people would have grounds to take action against T-Mobile. Since it was in a public setting(website, corporate announcement, whatever), there is a great chance that persons bought the phone with that particular feature in mind. Later changing that with no viable recourse for the user is nothing more than a classic bait and switch.
For the record, I do not believe anything from the website in the OP.
anonymousAversa
Member
GoldenEye 007 said:
fixed
GoldenEye 007
Member
Either way it is publicly accessible. Same difference.anonymousAversa said:
I'll believe it when I see it. Yes, it was a shoddy move on Sony's part, and they deserve to get what's coming to them. They need to learn from their arrogance that they've went into this gen with. They've been taking a beating for all they did, and this would probably top it off. Once again though, I'll believe it when I see my $300 from them.
Then again, I have to believe that if this does happen, they'll tell the court that their action is to reinstate said option with a firmware update rather than pay out that much money. Or, they'll give a extended warranty and free games. But I can't see them sending me a check for $300.
Then again, I have to believe that if this does happen, they'll tell the court that their action is to reinstate said option with a firmware update rather than pay out that much money. Or, they'll give a extended warranty and free games. But I can't see them sending me a check for $300.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
shidoshi said:
An advertisement. "Buy a Playstation 3, it does this and that." Something intended for mainstream consumers that they may see without going to Sony's corporate web site.
You also ignored the part about how the page clearly states the circumstances under which the feature is unavailable.
If you want to refer to this page as evidence for what Sony promises, you can't ignore the disclaimer at the top in red text.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
I never used Linux so I wasn't really affected by its removal.
As far as Sony giving consumers money, I find it very hard to believe they'd do that.
Even if they did, these type of court proceedings would take months, most of the time, years to resolved which makes this rumor hard to swallow.
As far as Sony giving consumers money, I find it very hard to believe they'd do that.
Even if they did, these type of court proceedings would take months, most of the time, years to resolved which makes this rumor hard to swallow.
Neuromancer
Member
Apparently a TV commercial or a billboard on the side of the road is the only thing some people consider to be an ad. :lolshidoshi said:
Neuromancer
Member
Terms of Service or whatever don't override the law.Safe Bet said:
IrishNinja
Member
MidnightScott said:Can you close this now? N4G picked up on Stumpakow's post.
oh shit, you werent even kidding..:lol
That's true, but the terms of service are not irrelevant. They provide details about what promises they are making, which is important when your argument is that Sony has broken its promise to consumers.Neuromancer said:
That doesn't mean that the terms of service will actually be supported by the courts, because there are plenty of reasons why the fine print may be dismissed. But your argument here is no more than hand waving.
Neuromancer
Member
Well we'll see what happens in court with these lawsuits. Until then I will continue to wave my hands.Slavik81 said:
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I have like half the people on this page on ignore so I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the news post is gone from the law firm's website and my suspicion is thus obviously confirmed.
Also, mad love to the random euro ps3 blogs who sourced my post on this topic. Who said the Ukraine was weak and feeble? Not me.
Also, mad love to the random euro ps3 blogs who sourced my post on this topic. Who said the Ukraine was weak and feeble? Not me.
Face it Tiger..
Banned
I paid $800 for my PS3, if this is true...
edit: oh..
edit: oh..
SuperSonic1305
Member
Mama Robotnik said:
Wow. :lol
Listen, Sony needs to stay alive. The PS3 is currently my favority Blu-Ray player. I bought it 3 or 4 years ago and it's still beating other blu-ray players out now. I don't even need to spend another 300 dollars for a 3DBD player because Sony's hardware is just that awesome. So screw you guys if you want to destroy a company that made such a great machine.
Also, it plays Metal Gear Solid 4.
Also, it plays Metal Gear Solid 4.
rainking187
Member
Boney said:
He calls the removal of a feature that like 4 people used the worst anti-consumer move in the industry.
Mama Robotnik
Member
rainking187 said:
No he didn't.
He said that a company purposefully breaking functionailty in someone's privately-owned property, an act which has every benefit to the company and zero benefit to the owner, is one of the worst anti-consumer moves in the industry.
Which it is. Absolutely.
If they aren't stopped within the gen, if this action is permitted, then we're going to go down a very slippery slope indeed.
Neuromancer
Member
Article is gone, I guess someone wised up.
AnkhWeasel
Member
They probably had a ridiculous spike in web traffic today, heh.Neuromancer said:
cantona222
Member
Interesting.
Well, if they are working towards giving me money. Then, be it
Well, if they are working towards giving me money. Then, be it
Neuromancer
Member
Email 1 said:
That's right I blew the whistleEmail 2 said:
Similar threads
- Locked