Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Gamer Loses PS3 Court Case Over 'Other OS'
dotarray writes "An Australian man who took Sony to court over the company's decision to remove Linux functionality from the PS3 console has now lost his claim, with the court clearing the manufacturer of any wrongdoing regarding the upgrade."
It's completely ridiculous, which shouldn't surprise anyone. We already know that going into court is a crapshoot, with somewhat random results, but the one thing that we can be certain of? Having money enough to have a team of attorneys permanently on staff (like Sony) is definitely going to help tug the randomness in your direction.
How could any court not view this as false advertising? My guess is that they have fresh Vaios and PS3s (i.e. hookers and blow) to spare.
Yet another case where money > consumer protection/right.
Nope, I think you mistook me for someone else.
Personally I lost all respect for Sony with the whole rootkit deal.
We are all God's parents.
A man walks into a shop:
"Hello, good sir. I would like to purchase a computer."
"Here you are. That will be $600"
"A fair deal indeed. Thank you."
[ Several months later, our hero comes home to find his computer missing. In its place is a short note and a paddle-ball ]
"Dear customer. We have taken the liberty of replacing your computer with a paddle-ball, as we learned that people were attempting to use their computers for non-paddleball-related activities."
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
The same act provides the shop with grounds to take it to the supplier. Basically, it means that the supply chain works both ways. You take the problem to the shop, and they are required by law to address it. They then take it to their supplier, who is required by law to address it. The complaints go from the customer to the retailer to the wholesaler and then to the supplier.
Part of the logic behind this is that you have a lot more leverage against the person closest to you in the supply chain. Your decision to boycott Sony and tell all of your friends to do so makes little difference to them. Your decision to boycott a local shop and tell all of your friends to do so makes a bigger difference to them. The shop's decision to boycott Sony won't make much difference, but their choice to switch wholesalers would. The wholesaler's decision to stop providing Sony products would be a much bigger threat to Sony than a single customer.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Indeed, and it makes the retailer less likely to do business with problem publishers/manufacturers, hence putting greater pressure on them than an individual by themselves could to rectify their poor business practices.
It's easy for a manufacturer to fob off multiple independent individuals, it's harder for them to fob off the retailers who are their gateway to getting their products to consumers in the first place.
I'm sorry, I think I missed the part of the article where they interviewed the Sony Killbot that was sent to this guy's house to mess with his PS3, can you link it?
(Serious Face) There was an update, he had to agree to an updated EULA before he downloaded. He misinterpreted the EULA as an April Fools joke. This is unfortunate, but ultimately his own damn fault for agreeing to something without understanding it. Nothing was stolen. Sony just pushed an update out to their OS. If he wants to run Linux so bad, he is perfectly free to open up his PS3 and do it himself. If he's not capable of doing that without relying on Sony's PS3 OS to do it for him then that's his problem.