POTM! lol. +repQuote:
Originally Posted by Strudel
Printable View
POTM! lol. +repQuote:
Originally Posted by Strudel
I think it's a precursor to "air rage."Quote:
Originally Posted by Strudel
It's ok. Seeing where you are from the terminology is different there. What we call a "plaintiff" over here is what your court systems call a "Claimant".Quote:
Originally Posted by Strudel
I am not sure if it was meant to be funny. Different countries use different terms for a party who initiates a lawsuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by F34R
Sony called the PS1 & PS2 a "computer" as well. Sony also goes by Sony Computer Entertainment instead of Sony Games Entertainment.....Quote:
Originally Posted by faaeng
Go figure, Linux could be installed on them aswell. I had Linux on both. The ability wasnt taken away after they were sold....Quote:
Originally Posted by sainraja
As for them being called Sony Computer Entertainment, what's your point? I can name off all the different branches for SONY aswell, but is doesn't prove anything...
________________
Sent from my hTC Intruder using Tapatalk.
Linux couldn't be installed on the PS1, they had a version of it that could run it which was more expensive. You seriously installed it on both?Quote:
Originally Posted by faaeng
Actually, Linux could be put on the PS1 and yes I did really have it on both. The necessary files needed may or may not be easy to come by nowadays. It's been so long =P but they are out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Staticneuron
I know what you mean about the different hardware version released that was designed to do so, but I wasn't referring to that model. I didn't have oneof those. Lol
I will say, It was much simpler to do on the PS2 then it was the PS1. :-)
________________
Sent from my hTC Intruder using Tapatalk.
i had windows 98 on my psp...Quote:
Originally Posted by Staticneuron
Sorry to interrupt you guys from your regularly scheduled roundabout argument, but what I'm more curious about is what will happen should Sony lose. Will they simply be forced to pay a renumeration to owners of the "Phat" PS3, or will they be court-ordered to re-enabled the OtherOS feature? At least if they are given the latter option, they can hopefully plug-up any potential OtherOS-based exploit (Yes, I'm well aware of the out-in-the-wild USB-based exploit). This will be win-win for both parties as owners of the Phat PS3 can use the OtherOS again, and Sony won't have to worry too much about a potential OtherOS-based exploit.
I think for most people that care about the OtherOS feature... well, I suppose they don't care so much now.
I think they'll be expecting a better functioning Linux via Jailbreak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One
I highly doubt the court could force Sony to put OtherOS back into the system. If they were to lose that would entail the plantiffs to assess a numerical value to the damage and Sony would pay it off.
It would probably boil down to $56 per person or something stupid like that. As a financial incentive, the only winners in that sense would be the attorneys who would gobble up some bank.
$56 dollars or a free game of your choice :D
Considering how long it took to get unsigned code running privileges, I highly doubt anyone will ever root the PS3 at this rate (a.k.a. Jailbreak).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonmess
Don't confuse the USB-based exploit (which only works on "unpatched" PS3's) with "Jailbreak", or otherwise known as rooting. Rooting means you have complete control over the machine including write access to the firmware; the USB-based exploit doesn't, you merely have the ability to run unsigned code on a machine without being able to change the firmware.
Possibly. The PS2 class action lawsuit they lost entitled consumers that were affected by the Disc Read Error to one free game, but it was constrained from within a pre-selected list.Quote:
Originally Posted by F34R
Quote:
Originally Posted by F34R
Well, I think they would be hard pressed to find a numerical value to the other OS function.
It's (the USB exploit dongle device) called (among other things) PSjailbreak, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One
All those people that cared about OtherOS enough not to update now have the perfect opportunity to run Linux properly through it, as soon as someone makes a working one that is.
It's totally a jailbreak. rooting!=jailbreaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One
Well, what's the next cheapest way to get a machine that isn't locked down and contains the Cell processor? That's your value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Staticneuron
I doubt it is that simple. Because the OtherOS function was part of the PS3's systems software.... which you cannot install an another machine that includes the Cell processor. Even in theoretical terms.... it fails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott64
No it doesn't. The main value for most with linux on the PS3 was the fact that you get to use the Cell. That's what I think most people (including myself) want(ed). I'm still on FW 3.15 because Linux on the PS3 matters more to me than PSN ever did. I also don't like having things taken away, but since they made me choose one, it was an easy choice. PSN will go away at some point in time (they can't be expected to support it forever), but as long as I don't update my FW and my hardware stays working, my ability to run Linux on it stays indefinitely.
Sony will probably have to pay compensation, even if the feature was turned back on; the problem here however is defining who this would apply to in an economically 'fair' way to either Sony or the consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One
For instance if the court took the stance that all PS3 'fat' owners (which must be circa 20mn+) are due to a partial-refund, Sony would have to source something in the region of $100-200mn. If it gets FUBAR (ie a full monetary refund which is a possibility) then you're looking at a similar $1bn that Microsoft had to shell out on for the RROD. Considering that it is a non-gaming feature I doubt Sony could offer games as compensation to soften the blow; but that is the worse case scenario.
Sony could however argue that only a small percentage of PS3 users ever used the feature and that the onus would be on the consumer to provide evidence that they had or were going to use the feature.
I'm not sure what law firms Sony refers to, but they've not had too successful a history; the DRE and Immersion cases are two examples involving either another corporate or consumers.
That's fantastic but the console was sold as is. If you posit the arguement that the value of OtherOS is higher then the rest of the features both monetary wise and personally, then the question would be asked about why you updated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott64
Because sony didn't support anything besides the feature itself, means that they hold no responsibility for what you used otherOS for and they did not offer the user any reassurances that they would.
This is simply a discussion about what was offered to you as a consumer vs personal use intentions. You could have used otherOS to install windows95 and run the security of your house for all that anyone cares, it is still not Sony's responsibility. They clearly informed everyone of that 4 years ago during launch and 40+ times since then.
In my honest opinion, I hope they get punished to the maximum extent of the law. I want them to pay in full what they owe to all the owners of the "fat" PS3s.
IF Sony never created the PS3 with another OS option in mind, then why did they included it? Why was the option on the menu system?
Weasly words it all.
Point is, we are going to see the argument of "licensing" coming up more and more.
This is the real scary aspect of all this, where you will OWN nothing, just RENT. Your software, your hardware, everything will be theirs to charge again and again and again and again for over and over again.
The new DLC and pay for each episode of tv such as Apple TV is gonna cost a helluva lot for what it available now free.