Samsung sued over "defective" first-gen Blu-ray players

[akrako1]

Samsung sued over "defective" first-gen Blu-ray players
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080211-samsung-sued-over-defective-first-gen-bl...y-players.html

Slashdot had this summary:

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."

[Video Head]

Caveat emptor...

It could be very difficult to prove that Samsung was deceptive or that the goods where not of merchantable quality at the time of sale.

[adam]

The movies theoretically still play on Profile 1.0 players, you just can't make use of all of the features that have been added to Blu-ray discs AFTER the release of that player. This wouldn't make them defective, but rather just limited and I'd imagine that this lawsuit would come down to a simple reading of the specifications. I'm pretty sure that the blu-ray specifications, even the latest profiles, list things like picture-in-picture and the like as "optional" as opposed to "mandatory." As long as the player supports the mandatory requirements, than it complies with the standard, as long as Samsung isn't marketing the device as more than it is.

However, there are apparently reports that this particular player has other problems with the discs in general, and that they do affect playback of the movie. That right there sounds like a defective player if its true, but I don't think anyone can complain about a special feature not working when that special wasn't implemented in the standard at the time the hardware was sold.

[DereX888]

Until it is a class action suit, any single person is no match against unlimited amount of legal crooks (aka lawyers) working for S*ny, Samsung, Toshiba etc corporations.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Caveat emptor....

Can't argue with you there.

Early adopter + lots of money = you take your chances + no sympathy

[DereX888]

Caveat emptor....

Can't argue with you there.

Early adopter + lots of money = you take your chances + no sympathy

especially "...no sympathy"

[funnel71]

I honestly don't think anything will come of a lawsuit. If the suit says that players went bad after X amount of days and would no longer function as advertised, then maybe, but the way I see it, newer features were added after these players came out. It sounds like bringing a lawsuit against Chevy because your 1966 model doesn't have the airbag protection that your 2001 has. Now I do think that it was kind of crude to build these things without and end-user ability to upgrade firmware to handle new features, but I don't think that would win a lawsuit.

[DereX888]

I honestly don't think anything will come of a lawsuit. If the suit says that players went bad after X amount of days and would no longer function as advertised, then maybe, but the way I see it, newer features were added after these players came out. It sounds like bringing a lawsuit against Chevy because your 1966 model doesn't have the airbag protection that your 2001 has. Now I do think that it was kind of crude to build these things without and end-user ability to upgrade firmware to handle new features, but I don't think that would win a lawsuit.

Correction: it is more like suing Chevy because that '66 model cannot run on unleaded gasoline, and leaded one is nowhere to be found nowadays...

[madymo3d]

Not quite exactly the same circumstances as the Samsung suit, but suing for a "lack" of features is not as far fetched as it might sound...even though the consumer was fully aware a feature is not present and continuing improvements may render their purchase outdated

Link

I honestly don't think anything will come of a lawsuit. If the suit says that players went bad after X amount of days and would no longer function as advertised, then maybe, but the way I see it, newer features were added after these players came out. It sounds like bringing a lawsuit against Chevy because your 1966 model doesn't have the airbag protection that your 2001 has. Now I do think that it was kind of crude to build these things without and end-user ability to upgrade firmware to handle new features, but I don't think that would win a lawsuit.

[JohnnyMalaria]

You can sue for anything. All the court is doing is allowing the suit to be filed. The court may be deliberately permitting it so as to let it fail and thereby set a precedent.

That suit is pretty daft. They want to sue Toyota for not installing air bags at a time when air bags were uncommon, especially on the cheapest models, nor federally mandated. Why didn't they buy a car with air bags to mitigate the risk?

I'm surprised they can bring the suit now unless NY's statute of limitations permits it - the accident occurred in 1991.

[DereX888]

I wish someone would sue the Federal Govt for allowing legal distribution and sale of well known carcirogenous substances, starting from cigarettes and brain-tumor causing sugar substitues, all FDA approved...
Who gives f*ck about features of (yet another) crappy S*ny product, really

[CubDukat]

Samsung sued over "defective" first-gen Blu-ray players
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080211-samsung-sued-over-defective-first-gen-bl...y-players.html

Slashdot had this summary:

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."

Wouldn't the 1200 be considered a second-generation player?

If they really wanted to sue Samsung, it should have been over the BD-P1000, that first one of theirs. That almost torpedoed the entire format. It's a good thing they got the firmware upgrade and the first-gen Sony player hit, other wise we might still have HD-DVD today.