Sony Responds to Linux lawsuits

[Sparc]

Of course it was. There are so many instances, that we've already covered when this OtherOS stuff started. Just because it wasn't some massive media blowout over otherOS, doesn't meant much. Your point isn't valid at all.

My point is everything the class lawsuit will get thrown out on. It's a non-issue, it's Sony's business, they haven't mis-sold or misrepresented the product and they haven't falsely advertised it. People can still use the console for everything it was intended to be used for - end of story. The case is dead in the water. We'll see how valid the point is.

[Centurion]

My point is everything the class lawsuit will get thrown out on. It's a non-issue, it's Sony's business, they haven't mis-sold or misrepresented the product and they haven't falsely advertised it. People can still use the console for everything it was intended to be used for - end of story. The case is dead in the water. We'll see how valid the point is.

How can you say that? The console was meant to be a gaming/multimedia machine with the ability to run another operating system..

[Sparc]

How can you say that? The console was meant to be a gaming/multimedia machine with the ability to run another operating system..

Point me to a link, tv advert, photo of the packaging that specifically advertises the last 7 words of your paragraph.

If Sony were ever going to be in hot water then it would have been through removing backwards compatibility - something they DID tout before they released the product and yet they removed that with no legal recourse.

Trust me. This case will go no where. Neither should it.

[aries300]

Point me to a link, tv advert, photo of the packaging that specifically advertises the last 7 words of your paragraph.

If Sony were ever going to be in hot water then it would have been through removing backwards compatibility - something they DID tout before they released the product and yet they removed that with no legal recourse.

Trust me. This case will go no where. Neither should it.

Ps2 BC is different because they didn´t remove it from anyone who had already bought the console. I still have ps2 BC. They removed it from newer models so when someone bought the ps3 they weren´t paying for a feature that had already been removed.

I wonder how the AirForce found out about the ability to run another OS on the ps3, since it was never advertised and of course no-one from Sony ever promoted the feature, hmm.
Did some serviceman just accidently discover it could run another OS after playing COD4. He then preceded to tell the ranking officer, who suddenly decided they should build a super computer with 200 ps3´s, lol.

[Kydosan]

Aaaand round it goes...

[faaeng]

Why does it seem as if the whole world has forgotten '06? Back before the PS3 was released, all the talk from Sony themselves about how the PS3 is not a videogame console and how it is infact a computer and supported Linux?

Later even striking a deal with Terrasoft Solutions to make them the official Linux distribution for The PS3. Sony themselves even submitting code tobe added to the Linux kernel so that future kernel updates for all distress would contain support for the PS3 hardware. All that mysteriously never happened aswell?

They may have used this strategy inorder to clear customs in certain regions, but it doesn't negate the fact that they did it.

What happened? Everyone just, forgot/doesn't care because it didn't/doesn't matter to them? Because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it didNT happen or wasn't said.

Meh I've fought with people about this subject since the other OS option was removed. I won't argue anymore, but i would like to show everyone a pretty picture nonetheless.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/696/696056p1.html

Ps2 BC is different because they didn´t remove it from anyone who had already bought the console. I still have ps2 BC. They removed it from newer models so when someone bought the ps3 they weren´t paying for a feature that had already been removed.

I wonder how the AirForce found out about the ability to run another OS on the ps3, since it was never advertised and of course no-one from Sony ever promoted the feature, hmm.
Did some serviceman just accidently discover it could run another OS after playing COD4. He then preceded to tell the ranking officer, who suddenly decided they should build a super computer with 200 ps3´s, lol.

heheh, I like that.

________________
Sent from my hTC Intruder using Tapatalk.

[Staticneuron]

Why does it seem as if the whole world has forgotten '06? Back before the PS3 was released, all the talk from Sony themselves about how the PS3 is not a videogame console and how it is infact a computer and supported Linux?

Later even striking a deal with Terrasoft Solutions to make them the official Linux distribution for The PS3. Sony themselves even submitting code tobe added to the Linux kernel so that future kernel updates for all distress would contain support for the PS3 hardware. All that mysteriously never happened aswell?

They may have used this strategy inorder to clear customs in certain regions, but it doesn't negate the fact that they did it.

What happened? Everyone just, forgot/doesn't care because it didn't/doesn't matter to them? Because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it didNT happen or wasn't said.

Meh I've fought with people about this subject since the other OS option was removed. I won't argue anymore, but i would like to show everyone a pretty picture nonetheless.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/696/696056p1.html





heheh, I like that.

________________
Sent from my hTC Intruder using Tapatalk.

No one forgot. Again, sony never supported linux directly, this is the same situation as the PS1 and the PS2 which also had versions of those consoles that ran linux (people seem to forget that) but linux was not a selling point for ANY of the playstations. It was not a feature advertised to the masses as a reason to purchase the consoles. A "core" feature is one that is advertised not one that you decide is the most important.

[F34R]

Point me to a link, tv advert, photo of the packaging that specifically advertises the last 7 words of your paragraph.

If Sony were ever going to be in hot water then it would have been through removing backwards compatibility - something they DID tout before they released the product and yet they removed that with no legal recourse.

Trust me. This case will go no where. Neither should it.

As far as I know, everyone that had BC, still does. Another invalid point.

No one forgot. Again, sony never supported linux directly, this is the same situation as the PS1 and the PS2 which also had versions of those consoles that ran linux (people seem to forget that) but linux was not a selling point for ANY of the playstations. It was not a feature advertised to the masses as a reason to purchase the consoles. A "core" feature is one that is advertised not one that you decide is the most important.

That's your opinion on how it should be seen, but we'll see if the court agrees with ya. They could very well see "ANY" promotion of the feature warrants it as being advertised. So, we'll have to see what they view about how otherOS was promoted, advertised, etc.

[Sufi]

Aaaand round it goes...

That's why I love these topics.

[Staticneuron]

That's your opinion on how it should be seen, but we'll see if the court agrees with ya. They could very well see "ANY" promotion of the feature warrants it as being advertised. So, we'll have to see what they view about how otherOS was promoted, advertised, etc.

It is simple, because it isn't really an opinion on what they are, just how they will deal with this is going to be the issue. Sony is responsible for any press release that they have, but not for news articles from third party sources. Especially those that work with another company. An advert is an attempt to persuade consumers to purchase a product. Manuals and alerts are there to inform consumers who have already purchased a product.

In the motion to dismiss Sony named many other cases as references and chances are this case will be dismissed because it is not the first of its kind and given the explicit verbage of Sony's motion.

[faaeng]

But yet their not responsible for what they said during their interviews with said third party sources or their very own '06 press conference where call the PS3 a computer and not a gaming console and also tout the fact that the PS3 supported Linux?......

Interesting.......

________________
Sent from my hTC Intruder using Tapatalk.

[F34R]

Meh, we'll just keep going back and forth on this. You say it wasn't advertised, others say it was. Your definition of advertised is fine. The issue is whether or not the promotion that Sony gave OtherOS through interviews, etc., all those things quoted in the actual lawsuit that was filed, is going to be considered by the court as "advertising".

[faaeng]

Pretty much what F3AR just said.

It can be argued until we're all blue in the face, but what you and I it what anyone here thinks doesn't matter.

It's all in the hands of the court system now. For better or worse.

________________
Sent from my hTC Intruder using Tapatalk.

[Bostonmess]

I can't remember adverts for standard def support over composite/scart.

Doesn't mean it's ok to remove the software that supports it.

I can't remember adverts for replaceable 2.5" SATA hdds.

Doesn't mean it's ok to stop supporting the ability to swap 'em out and lock all drives to the consoles if they could.

I can't remember ads for rechargeable controllers, stereo sound, keyboards, mice, steering wheels, cameras, microphones, different sound outputs, all of which you might say is hardware and therefore entirely different but it all needs software support to run.

Ok, my memory might be fuzzy with all that, but I don't see the importance of ten foot high billboards screaming out LINUX! etc to denote whether the feature has to be retained or not.

I can't remember an advert for windscreen wipers on my car.

The PS3 wasn't sold as just a games console, OtherOS was an integral function for many purchasers. IMHO.

[Sparc]

Judge Judy would throw it out

[F34R]

Judge Judy would throw it out

No way... I couldn't see that at all.

[Staticneuron]

But yet their not responsible for what they said during their interviews with said third party sources or their very own '06 press conference where call the PS3 a computer and not a gaming console and also tout the fact that the PS3 supported Linux?......

Interesting.......

________________
Sent from my hTC Intruder using Tapatalk.

They didn't list it as a selling point nor advertised it as such. It is that simple. Select interviews that may reach a target audience and has behind the scene talk or even hyperbole is not advertising.

1. Saying the PS3 has a lot of features a computer has doesn't really have anything to do with other OS because the native system OS can do many of the main functions a computer can with the exception of word processing.

2.And they never said they "supported linux" they said the PS3 had the ability to install it and they never once said that it would be perpetual.

You guys are wrong on this no matter how you slice it.

[F34R]

They didn't list it as a selling point nor advertised it as such. It is that simple. Select interviews that may reach a target audience and has behind the scene talk or even hyperbole is not advertising.

1. Saying the PS3 has a lot of features a computer has doesn't really have anything to do with other OS because the native system OS can do many of the main functions a computer can with the exception of word processing.

And they never said they "supported linux" they said the PS3 had the ability to install it and they never once said that it would be perpetual.

You guys are wrong on this no matter how you slice it.

Can you point to some precedent or other case law to support your opinion about the advertising aspect of the case? I'm interested on why you think that these things are absolute. You might be right, but I don't think it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

[Staticneuron]

Can you point to some precedent or other case law to support your opinion about the advertising aspect of the case? I'm interested on why you think that these things are absolute. You might be right, but I don't think it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

Well, in sony's response to the lawuit the name many cases that have similar situations(in some capacity) attached to it

CASES
A.A. Baxter Corp. v. Colt Indus., Inc.,
10 Cal. App. 3d 144 (1970)

Adashunas v. Negley,
626 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1980)

Aiken v. Obledo,
442 F. Supp. 628 (E.D. Cal. 1977)

Alaska v. Suburban Propane Gas Corp.,
123 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir. 1997)

Banda v. Corzine,
2007 WL 3243917 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2007)

Bishop v. Saab Auto. A.B.,
1996 WL 33150020 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 1996)

Bostick v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.,
2004 WL 3313614 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 17, 2004)

Bradford v. UnionPacific R.R. Co.,
2007 WL 2893650 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 28, 2007)

Brown v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
151 Cal. App. 3d 982 (1984)


Bureerong v. Uvawas,
922 F. Supp. 1450 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co.,
42 Cal. 2d 682 (1954)

Caldwell v. Caldwell,
2006 WL 618511 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006)

Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
18 Cal. App. 4th 644 (1993)

Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996)

Coleman v. McLaren,
98 F.R.D. 638 (N.D. Ill. 1983)


CRLA v. Legal Services Co.,
917 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1990)

DeBremaechker v. Short,
433 F.2d 733 (5th Cir. 1970)

Deitz v. Comcast Corp.,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53188 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2007)

Deitz v. Comcast Corp.,
2007 WL 2015440 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2007)

Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG,
443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006)

Dodd-Owens v. Kyphon, Inc.,
2007 WL 3010560 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2007)

Duffin v. Exelon Corp.,
2007 WL 1385369 (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2007)

Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc.,
603 F.3d 571, 623 (9th Cir. 2010)

Dumas v. Kipp,
90 F.

Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,
984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993)

Garcia v. Veneman,
211 F.R.D. 15 (D.D.C. 2002)

Gartin v. S&M NuTec LLC,
245 F.R.D. 429 (C.D. Cal. 2007)

Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner And Smith, Inc.,
119 F.R.D. 344 (S.D.N.Y. 198

General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon,
457 U.S. 147 (1982)

Gomez v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ.,
117 F.R.D. 394 (N.D. Ill. 1987)


Gonzalez v. Proctor and Gamble Co.,
2007 WL 2700954 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2007)

Gonzalez v. Proctor and Gamble Co.,
247 F.R.D. 616 (S.D. Cal. 2007)

Haley v. Medtronic, Inc.,
169 F.R.D. 643 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

Harris v. Purdue Pharma., L.P.,
218 F.R.D. 590 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2003)

Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani,
251 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2001)

Horowitz v. Pownall,
105 F.R.D. 615 (D. Md. 1985)

In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Prac. and Prods Liability Litig.,
257 F.R.D. 315 (D. Mass. 2009)

In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig.,
280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2001)

In re ZZZZ Best Sec. Litig.,
1994 WL 675160 (C.D. Cal. May 25, 1994) .

Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, Tex.,
118 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 199

Lovejoy v. AT&T Corp.,
119 Cal. App. 4th 151 (2004)

Lucas v. Dep't of Corrections,
66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995)

Mack v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.,
169 F.R.D. 671 (M.D. Ala. 1996)

Martin v. Dahlberg, Inc.,
156 F.R.D. 207 (N.D. Cal. 1994)

Mazur v. eBay, Inc.,
257 F.R.D. 563 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

Molski v. Gleich,
318 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2003)

Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc.,
306 F.3d 1247 (2d Cir. 2002)

Newman v. RCN Telecom Serv., Inc.,
238 F.R.D. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Nichols v. Mobile Bd. Of Realtors, Inc.,
675 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1982)

Osborne v. Subaru of Am., Inc.,
198 Cal. App. 3d 646 (198

Pfizer v. Superior Court,
182 Cal. App. 4th 622 (2010)

Piggly Wiggly Clarksville, Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp.,
215 F.R.D. 523 (E.D. Tex. 2003)

Reed v. Advocate Health Care,
2009 WL 3146999 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2009)

Ritti v. U-Haul Intern., Inc.,
No. 05-4182, 2006 WL 1117878 (E.D. Pa. April 26, 2006)

Rodney v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.,
146 Fed. Appx. 783 (6th Cir. 2005)

Rose v. Medtronics, Inc.,
107 Cal. App. 3d 150 (1980)

Sanders v. Apple Inc.,
672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2009)

Sanneman v. Chrysler Corp.,
191 F.R.D. 441 (E.D. Pa. 2000)

Schuentz v. Banc One Mortgage Corp.,
292 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1171 (2003)

Simer v. Rios,
661 F.2d 655 (7th Cir. 1981)

Smith v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
174 F.R.D. 90 (W.D. Mo. 1997)

Stubbs v. McDonald's Corp.,
224 F.R.D. 668 (D. Kan. 2004)

Thompson v. Merck & Co.,
No. C.A. 01-1004, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 540 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2004)

Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009)

Windham v. American Brands, Inc.,
565 F.2d 59 (4th Cir. 1977)

And the sheer fact that if you are going to hold someone to loose statements you need to know what the courts are going to look at.

1. Even if you were to bring in claims of a companies "authorized" representative saying so as a reason for purchasing the console then, you also have to get a quote from another "authorized" representative stating that the feature in question is also going to be supported perpetually.

2. In the official manuals and in the knowledge bases clearly stated in plain text that they did not support linux directly nor did they state the otherOS feature was going to be there.

3. It is a "fact" not an "opinion" that linux was not advertised as main selling point for the console. If you are going to bring a case of fraud and dages to the table the court will compare you to the rest of the consumers to see if such an error would be made by others and if it was misleading enough to fool the average person.

CIP:
Caro v. Procter & Gamble Co

Caro's complaint alleged: Defendants falsely represented various P&G "Citrus Hill" products to be fresh orange juice, made from the heart of the orange, 100 percent pure orange juice, additive free, and from oranges picked and squeezed on the same day. Caro bought a Citrus Hill product at Vons's San Diego market in reliance upon its labeling and defendants' advertising representations.[1] However, the Citrus Hill products were not fresh but instead were reconstituted from frozen concentrate, contained additives including water and flavor enhancers, were made from the entire orange, and were not made from oranges picked and squeezed the same day. P&G was the subject of actions by various state and federal regulators involving its Citrus Hill products.

result

Further, substantial evidence also supports the court's finding that reading the entire Citrus Hill Fresh Choice orange juice label would have raised questions in Caro's mind about the nature of the juice. At deposition Caro testified that when buying Citrus Hill Fresh Choice orange juice he read only the top half of the labels. Caro also testified if he had read the three sides of the carton stating the juice was "from concentrate" he would have concluded the juice was not "premium." Thus, at most Caro's claim would be typical of only those persons whose reading of the label was similarly limited. Caro has not demonstrated the existence of such persons.

Similarly, Caro did not demonstrate his claims of damages in "not receiving the premium product he paid for" were typical. Caro asserts he shared with class members common damages, to wit, the difference between the price paid and the value received. However, Caro did not show his damages for not receiving "premium" orange juice would be typical of those suffered by the complaint-defined class of consumers who believed they were receiving "fresh" orange juice. Neither did Caro show his damages would be typical of those of persons who read the entire label and received the "from concentrate" orange juice for which they paid. (16), (13d)

Normally in cases like these, claiming that you "Feel" something should be that way about a product you paid for is not enough. You must prove that even after doing things a normal consumer(class) should do, like read the labels or manuals included with the product, and possibly even reading the TOS/Eula you are asked to accept that you would still be mislead into a situation that could cause damages. You cant start a case and plead ignorance to the material provided to you not only before purchase (label s and text on box) but also the material after purchase.

The court is not going to buy an assessment that the consumer was mislead simply because of a third party review because that does not represent sound judgment. It is rather juvenile if you think about it.

Edit: seriously though if people actually read sony's motion there would be little question about if this case will survive or not. Take for instance 4 out of the 5 said they only gleaned this information off of the SCEA site. Even if doing so they have a case in where they can prove the difference between the plantiffs and the average consumer by the responses on said site. One of the guys in question quotes and article printed in Feb 2007 as his reason for purchasing PS3 despite him stating in his filing that he purchased his PS3 in January of 2007. Honestly this was shakey to begin with but getting to specifics, sony is really taking it to them and any contradictions they have made. I wish people would have actually read the motion.

Here it is for you guys to read:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...811/226894/96/

[F34R]

It's going to take a little while to reply intelligently about all those cases, but I am going to review them and weigh my opinion on how they relate to this case. I don't feel that one you quote though has any significant bearing on this case. It's a completely different base compared to this case.

However, I will read through all those cases and see where they apply to this situation. Just because Sony has thrown a bunch of case law in there, doesn't automatically make them relevant. Give me some time to review them, and I'm at work, so time is a scarce resource for me tonight lol.

[Staticneuron]

It's going to take a little while to reply intelligently about all those cases, but I am going to review them and weigh my opinion on how they relate to this case. I don't feel that one you quote though has any significant bearing on this case. It's a completely different base compared to this case.

However, I will read through all those cases and see where they apply to this situation. Just because Sony has thrown a bunch of case law in there, doesn't automatically make them relevant. Give me some time to review them, and I'm at work, so time is a scarce resource for me tonight lol.

I'll tell you why the one I quote is relevant for the dismissal motion and that has to do with class. As a tried to break it down for you above. It deals with the burden of proof on the plantiff, the reaction of the average consumer when put in the situation, and not only if there was damages incurred but also if there is any worth to the damages.

Sony is not stupid. The team of lawyers they hired are not stupid. People mocked me when I brought it up but it was obvious that they didn't read the motion at all. Without even having to assess whether or not comments made in third hand interviews can be construed as advertisement ( I am sure this isn't the first case to deal with such an inane theory) the sheer fact that they contradicted themselves often and the fact that many people have spoken up in opposition to their claims, it is seemingly strong set up for dismissal.

[F34R]

Ive read through about five entire cases now, opinions and appeals, and I see a lot of points they are trying to make, and they are stretching it really then, and loosely applying circumstances from those cases, into this one.

I mean, some of them are so out in left field lol, it's amazing that a team of lawyers could put together such a loose argument to try and bog the case down with review. I have to hand it to them though lol, they picked some "doozies" (spelling?).

The issue is that some of these points have merit, no doubt, and can be applied to this situation, and then this situation has unique properties that outweigh these issues. So, it'll be interesting to see for sure.

[Staticneuron]

Ive read through about five entire cases now, opinions and appeals, and I see a lot of points they are trying to make, and they are stretching it really then, and loosely applying circumstances from those cases, into this one.

I mean, some of them are so out in left field lol, it's amazing that a team of lawyers could put together such a loose argument to try and bog the case down with review. I have to hand it to them though lol, they picked some "doozies" (spelling?).

The issue is that some of these points have merit, no doubt, and can be applied to this situation, and then this situation has unique properties that outweigh these issues. So, it'll be interesting to see for sure.

I am not sure which cases you were looking at but the top five simply have common reasons for dismissals. The are either proving the plantiffs claim meritless and/or without specific definition or proof in terms of damages.

[F34R]

Sure they common reasons, but they aren't really applied to the specific circumstances to the class action case here. If it's easy for someone like me to see through the smoke screen, it won't be much a stretch to see a judge find the same thing.

[Strudel]

Am I the only one who had to google "plaintiff"?