Sony's Win a Major Blow for Importers

Joan Cross writes "Sony won a battle in the UK Courts over the importing to Europe of Playstation Portables by Lik Sang. They say that 'Ultimately, we're trying to protect consumers from being sold hardware that does not conform to strict EU or UK consumer safety standards, due to voltage supply differences et cetera'. Of course, the PSP comes supplied with a 100-240v adapter which is safe worldwide. Lik Sang has posted their reaction to the court decision. Could be bad news for those wanting PS3 Consoles on import."

Comments

Riiiiiight

[KU_Fletch]

Because when I think Sony, I think consumer protection.

Re:Riiiiiight

[eclectro]

I have always admired Sony's quality music CD offerings$$&&&+++NO CARRIER

Fixed it

[Kattspya]

There seem to be a small error in the summary so I fixed it.

'Ultimately, we're trying to protect consumers from being sold hardware that is cheaper than what can be bought locally'

Simple solution.....

[budword]

Don't like it ? Vote with your wallet, don't buy one.

Re:Simple solution.....

[tehwebguy]

indeed. i'm sure there is another, less expensive system for mii

Globalization

[SeaFox]

This is another side to globalization. As the world as a whole becomes more interconnected thanks to the internet and cheap international shipping, the marketting notion of making products available in different contries at different times is not going to hold up.

It's the same issue you already see DVD region encoding, and with digital music services: people complaining about albums being available in some countries and not others when everyone is getting their tunes from a server on the Internet.

In the future corporations are going to need to stop thinking they can easily dictate the geographical spread of their goods and start thinking of their product launches as a worldwide event. The entertainment industries need to stop setting up distribution deals for invidual regions and make their deals for global availablity. If they don't they will only see their products pasisng through black-market channels and piracy rings more readily instead of generating more revenue for them.

Re:Globalization

[Cederic]

It's not the time difference that gets me. It's the difference in price.

I have to compete directly for jobs with people in India, China, Eastern Europe and anywhere else you can outsource IT to. This impacts the amount I can earn, and my chances of getting a job in the first place.

However, I am forced by EU/UK law to pay a higher price for goods, as demonstrated by this court case.

Frankly this pisses me off. I'm getting fucked over both ways.

Re:Globalization

[Anonymous Coward]

"Frankly this pisses me off. I'm getting fucked over both ways."

Yup, except it's a 4-way, not a 3-way. Globalization ultimately works around nation governments too; thus, there is little effective oversight on the international level to force fair play on multi-national interests.

For example, there are no international anti-trust or price fixing laws that I'm aware of. This has a signficant effect on pricing as well as penetration (pun not intended), such as allowing established industries (e.g. RIAA and MPAA) to charge emerging markets far less for their products. Meanwhile, established markets pay full price, or artificially higher than what would normally be decided by the market (due to intellectual propery laws i.e. patents, copyright). This is why we see can see the same exact products being sold in the US, Mexico, and China go for far far less in the last 2 countries. US and EU college students see this with book pricing. MS OS pricing in Asia indicates this as well.

iow, in some ways, you are essentially subsidizing what amounts to a product loss leader to establish a brand in up and coming markets. In other ways, you are denying fair competition on those emerging markets when they should be protected; those poorer nations have little choice but to abide due to pressure from wealthier nations. (And I believe this is somewhat similar to one of the arguments made against the $100 PC.)

Conversely, those same laws can be used to deny products in those poorer countries as well. In doesn't make logical sense until you realize that companies don't want this importing to occur back to wealthier countries they are established in (see certain aspects of the pharmaceutical industry, although I think they have a fairer policy than the copyright industry groups).

Motives

[Allicorn]

If only certain corporations would realise that its often not so much their predictable actions of self-interest which disgust people, but their wilful dishonesty.

If they'd just say, "We brought this action to ensure that us and only us get to squeeze every last penny-worth of value out of our product and we don't have to share with anyone"... perhaps not a flowers-and-rainbows kinda sentiment but sheesh at least it'd be honest!

The real news here...

[spongebue]

Could be bad news for those wanting PS3 Consoles on import.

I didn't know people actually wanted a PS3 to begin with :P

What about Japanese exporters?

[maynard]

Price Japan will export just about anything Japanese to anyone in the world. Some years ago I bought a Sony HS-20 video projector from that site, because it wasn't available in the US at the time. It still works just great. But perhaps court judgments like this will ultimately kill companies like Price Japan.

So, does this mean that Sony can legally prevent private international re-sale of their product line too? Where is the demark line between what is and what is not permissible?

Thinking of legal ways around this

[Wills]

If Lik Sang were to bulk-buy PSPs from Japanese retailers (legal) in Japan, have the purchased PSPs delivered to the home addresses in Japan of minimum-wage Japanese workers who open the PSP retail box/packaging and use the PSPs for at least a month (legal), the consoles would then be used goods which could be legally exported and sold anywhere in the world including the EU and UK. Even after shipping costs and customs taxes are taken into account, it should still be profitable given the relatively very high prices in the EU and UK of brand new PSPs.

Since Sony's Losing Money on Them

[Greyfox]

And developers base their platform choices on the number of platforms in circulation I propose that we buy thousands of these machines for the purpose of epoxying them together into a giant angry penguin statue, 4 stories tall, to be erected across the street from the Sony corporate headquarters. Developers will know that thousands of the machines will never be used for gaming, Sony loses tens of thousands of dollars from their per-unit loss and we get to build a 4 story angry penguin statue out of consumer electronics. It's a win-win!

Just like U.S./Canadian Drugs

[SeaFox]

I'm dubious of any true safety concerns. Does Sony want it shouted that: Sony sells unsafe PS3's everywhere in the world except the UK, because only UK law won't allow it!

It's funny, this is the same thing happens with pharmaceuticals in the U.S. The industry doesn't want people importing Canadian drugs (which are much cheaper) and one thing mentioned is that they have concern the drugs do not meet U.S. quality standards.

I have yet to hear anyone ask if that's true doesn't that mean they are giving Candaians sub-quality prescription drugs. You think there would be a Canadian-consumer uproar with such simple logic.