PS3 Owner Gets $100 Rebate for Losing Linux

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am in love with the sad penguin! I want to take it home to meet my parents!

I don't think Amazon should have done this (if it's true). This will only open the floodgates (I'll be one of the people flooding in - $600 when the PS3 came out...What was I thinking!).
 
Case for a class action perhaps? At the very least Sony should offer some PSN credits. I have a fat boy PS3 and I am very very disappointed with Sony on this.
 
If Amazon is offering partial refunds I can assume they are getting ready to sue? I mean I don't see why a retailer would do that, people aren't mad at Amazon, they are mad at Sony. No one I think was expecting them to step in. I assume they are doing this so they can sue and look like the peoples hero.
 
Amazon decided to make him happy again not Sony, and i can assure you Sony isn't refunding or reimbursing anyone for this. So Good Luck on that one. If you want your Linux go download the new Patch that will alllow you to keep your Linux. Personally i think Linux is comnplete junk but that's just my two cents.


 
Tom's, you are going to start a snowball effect by posting this article. Now everyone and their grandmother is gonna go to Amazon looking for rebates. You realize this, don't you?

Would that have any repercussion on you?
 
[citation][nom]hakesterman[/nom]Amazon decided to make him happy again not Sony, and i can assure you Sony isn't refunding or reimbursing anyone for this. So Good Luck on that one. If you want your Linux go download the new Patch that will alllow you to keep your Linux. Personally i think Linux is comnplete junk but that's just my two cents.[/citation]I personally think Linux, from an outsiders point of view is an excellent piece of software. Yes, when you start to get involved with the nitty gritty of it.. Linux definitely needs some help from professional software developers to sort some things out but as an efficient OS, it sure does the trick especially because it is free.
 
[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]Tom's, you are going to start a snowball effect by posting this article. Now everyone and their grandmother is gonna go to Amazon looking for rebates. You realize this, don't you? Would that have any repercussion on you?[/citation]

If everyone and their grandmother, under the EU's consumer production laws which the most recent PS3 update violated, then they should get their rebate.

Repercussions for Tom's? As in should Tom's feel bad if Amazon get's flood with rebate requests? What? Huh? No, don't be stupid.
 
A class action lawsuit would definitely win something.

It's like if you bought a game, then a new patch for that game (required to play online) added DRM that required you be connected to the internet at all time to play. You could argue that you bought the game to play on trips and that this patch reduced the value to you greatly.
 
I suspect Sony will reimburse Amazon for these, and quite happily. It probably went something like this:
Amazon: Hey Sony, your product isn't going to do what you claimed it would do, that this buyer says made him choose to buy it. That's illegal, but we think he'll be happy with a [partial] refund. You have two choices: 1) Do nothing. We'll sue you for the full amount of every PS3 we've ever sold in the EU, in anticipation of more irate customers, plus damages for our loss of goodwill; you know we'll win, because of this law; or 2) you reimburse us for any refunds, as they happen, and only IF they happen.
Sony: We'll take door #2!

Sony only has to pay [partial] refunds for that fraction of PS3 buyers that wanted to put Linux on their PS3, and cared enough to moan about not being able to.
 
How was the figure of $100 arrived at? Was it just plucked out of the air? How do you quantify the loss of such a feature?
 
In common law jurisdictions in the United States, there is an article in the Uniform Commercial Code (which has been adopted by most states) that imposes what is commonly known as the "implied warranty," or "warranty of fitness." It is, effectively, the U.S. equivalent of the UK law noted in the article. In operation, it requires that goods sold by merchants (which has specific legal meaning) must be fit for the particular purpose that enticed the buyer to purchase them. These warranties can (and, presumably, often are) be disclaimed by the seller, and so whether or not you could recover for something like this would depend on a variety of factors, including the particular laws of any person's state of residence/purchase.

Please keep in mind that this post is not intended as, nor should it be construed as, legal advice of any kind, and under no circumstances can it be relied on as such.
 
This is a law in the states too. It is called Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose. If the seller knows at the time of sale that you are buying for a particular use then there is a warranty that it will preform it.

Now, they can also make sure they write something in their own warranty that disclaims it, but if Amazon was willing to refund money maybe it wasn't there when he contacted them. 😀
 
Thats a great deal. Does that mean that the prices of PS3 will go down??? And you can grab your rebate and grab the hack firmware to use linux. Great deal. Hats off to Sony :-D
 
The problem is that a situation has now been created to say. "Hey if anyone bought the PS3 to use it for Linux we will sue Sony".

I would guess that there were truthfully up to several thousand people who bought the PS3 because of Linux (there truely isn't much you can do with it compared to a pc Linux version). If only those people sued, it would be fine. The problem is that now everyone (millions) will come out of the woodwork and demand their 100 dollars (99.999% of which haven't even touched Linux), and not even care of how it will affect Sony and future developement.

People think that companies have limitless amounts of money, but they dont. The only result of all of this is that if it got really big, it would cripple Sony and make some greedy scumbag lawyer really really rich.
 
[citation][nom]noodlegts[/nom]A class action lawsuit would definitely win something.It's like if you bought a game, then a new patch for that game (required to play online) added DRM that required you be connected to the internet at all time to play. You could argue that you bought the game to play on trips and that this patch reduced the value to you greatly.[/citation]

At least here in Sweden they can't do that unless they print "Requires an internet connection to function" or similar on the case. If they don't you're entitled to a full refund because you were not informed of the requirement of an internet connection at the time of purchase.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom