Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Sued Over "Defective" Blu-ray Player
Anneka notes that, although both Netflix and Best Buy threw logs on HD DVD's funeral pyre today, things are not all going Blu-ray's way. A Connecticut man is suing Samsung, the maker that brought the first Blu-ray players to market, over its "defective" BD-P1200 player. The lawsuit seeks class-action status. The problem is that the Samsung BD-P1200 is a "Profile 1.0" player that can't play some Blu-ray discs and Samsung has no intention (or ability) to upgrade these players via firmware. Quoting Ars: "The meager requirements of the 1.0 profile mean that Blu-ray players which fail to implement the optional features won't be able to take advantage of picture-in-picture, which requires secondary decoders. 1.0 players are also unable to store local content, lacking the 256MB of storage mandated by the 1.1 profile. Profile 1.1 discs should still play on 1.0 players, however, but the extra features will not work."
There's a reason we call it the bleeding edge - because it cuts you. And you bleed. It's much like new software - I won't touch a new OS or game until it's had at least one patch or service pack.
I don't see the problem. It's a Profile 1.0 player, and it gives the user all Profile 1.0 features. It does what it says on the box. It will play Profile 1.1 discs - you can still see the video and hear the audio. Since Profile 1.1 requires additional hardware (like the 256MB local storage), it isn't possible to update a Profile 1.0 player with new firmware.
Think of this another way: I have a MacBook with a Core Duo CPU. It's a 32-bit x86 processor with SSE3. It will run OSX 10.5 Leopard in 32-bit mode, but 64-bit features won't work, and 64-bit only applications won't run. Should I go and sue Apple for selling me a defective product? Should I demand they give me an update? It's not like a new EFI ROM will turn a 32-bit chip into a 64-bit one, either.
How is this a fault of a manufacturer? Especially one that is not the creator of the Blue-Ray disk. Samsung made a hardware platform with a current drive and the technology improved and the old system cannot be upgraded. Why not sue every HDD manufacturer then? My old IDE drive won't work with my new motherboard. I cannot get firmware updates and the connectors are all wrong!
These frivolous lawsuits need to stop. They really need to start tossing these people out on there asses or pressing some criminal negligence charges against them.
The only market segment decided so far are people who are willing and able to pay $600 for a high-def player or a game console. Apparently HD-DVD captured an even smaller mind share, but $150 players are only a recent phenomenon and it's effect on the market remains to be see. If and when Blu Ray players are available for under a hundred bucks and titles are around $25 we can talk about having a winner.
One important thing to remember is Joe Consumer doesn't know or care about 1.0, 1.1, etc.
Unless they're changing the name, ol' Joe is going to get upset when it doesn't work like it says on the box. Joe is used to auto recalls and static products, and I think BluRay forgot that in their little war to win the format.
I love my computer -- You make me feel alright (Bad Religion)
Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing these companies getting a slap on the wrist for a changing definition of what Blu-Ray is by changing the profile but not making the differences obvious (it's a little tiny box on the back of a case).
That said, sounds like the guy has a case to me. Read this part:
It was defective. It sounds like the bought a DVD player (let's pretend) that wouldn't play a good percentage of DVDs. Not "doesn't play every neat feature". Not "doesn't support 12.16 theatrical sound". Just plain "won't play". They could fix it with a software update, but they don't seem to want to.
That part is bait-and-switch. He bought a player that should play any good Blu-Ray movie (possibly san-extras). It won't play many of them. Either all those movies are defective, or the player is. If it is the player, he was ripped off. At the very least, they should have replaced his player with something that would play movies.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
PS2 games carry the DVD logo and they wont work on just any DVD player!
This lawsuit is so silly it's not really newsworthy. Probably some amateur lawyer who looks at the legal system as his own personal, free lottery ticket.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It can't possibly win.
After reading the court papers, paragraph 5 states that the nature of the case is that Samsung was aware the player was defective, however if you look at the conditions provided by SONY, the system met ALL profile 1.0 standards and is not defective. Due to this wording alone the claim is damaged.
Paragraph 7 says that selling thie Blu-Ray player cause injury(not physical) to the plaintiff. What injury, the world knowing how much of an ass-hat he is? Obviously this is completely trumped up and any self respecting judge would not even consider ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
In the factual allegations, it is never stated that Samsung claimed that all Blu-Ray disc profiles would work on this system. Most of the 'factual' allegations are merely ripped from the Blu-Ray advertising that is put out by Sony, in regards to storage capacity and picture quality. I didn't see anything at all about picture in picture claims made by Samsung. If no claim was made by Samsung then I don't see a case.
...but that comes with being an early adopter.Why should it? If he bought something marked that it plays Blu-Ray it should play any media that is also marked Blu-Ray, regardless of when either was bought. Just because it was the first player to market doesn't make it exempt. If they change the spec they should change the marking to at least show that the two aren't compatible.
i read about it in a blog once
"And then I want to see Sony get slammed for selling "CDs" that won't play in some CD players because the Sony CDs have DRM that's not part of the "CD" spec."
Do you see any of these logos on the front or back paper inserts, on the OUTSIDE of the case (not inside, as in after opening the case,) SPECIFICALLY the one that says Compact Disc Digital Audio?
If you don't see the CDDA, then it's safe to assume that the CD does not follow the CDDA format, and therefore has DRM. CDDA does not have provisions for DRM, and any disc carrying DRM, or is 'enhanced' (extra data track after audio tracks included) may not display that logo on the case. The actual part that holds the disc in the case will just have the plain Compact Disc logo most often.
If you have any discs that display the CDDA logo and they have DRM or any 'enhancements' for our computer, the maker of that disc is in violation of the rules that Phillips set forth in specifying the format. You should immediately notify them of the breach of contract between the music company that made the discs and Phillips. And you should probably go ahead and lawyer up, because once you stir up the snake nest they're gonna come crawling and biting at your ankles.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Bad analogy. Not that this one is much better, but this would be like buying a TV that claims it plays digital broadcasts, but then doesn't play ATSC broadcasts. If the manufacturer didn't implement the BD+ properly in their player, it's not the content providers fault that the player doesn't process the BD+. Just like it's not your local NBC broadcaster's fault that your TV doesn't properly display ATSC, even though it might work with DVB/T just fine.
I don't think it matters. Unless a new format comes out that is just as cheap and powerful we all lose due to DRM.
to NOT be an early adopter of new technology. No Blu-Ray or HD DVD here, just a sweet 1080p with a quality DVD upconvert player (http://dvdupconvert.wordpress.com/) so I can enjoy my existing DVD collection.
And I don't mind it, but why are vital things like a second decoder not in the spec to make it at least upgradeable. Or even just disabled until a special disc is put in to flash the firmware to activate it ?
The article mentions that there isn't enough RAM for a paticular decoder to operate. There isn't a single software upgrade that can get past the lack of the physical memory. The boards in most of the players isn't laid out where memory can be just plugged in. A small run to produce new boards and the labor cost of a recall for a board swap is cost prohibitive. The early production run did not have the 2nd decoder built-in because the spec was probably still being finalized. There were no discs out at that time to even verify the decoder would work if it was installed at that time.
This is much like the early days of UHF TV (I'm old enough to remember) when the FCC mandated 82 channel reception. Many sets shipped with UHF tuners that didn't function. Several years later, the failure was noticed when the first UHF sets went live.
This is why I didn't buy a flatscreen with a tuner before the local broadcasters were on the air. I waited until after the signal was established.
If the company was ethical, they should have a trade-in program instead of expecting the end user to bite the entire cost of replacement.
The truth shall set you free!