Samsung sued over "defective" BD players (1 Viewer)

[Chris Gerhard]

I believe all other players including all other players from Samsung play the discs. It is true that various models like the Sony BDP-S1 have required firmware updates to play the new releases. I have both the BD-P1000 and BD-P1200 and the BD-P1000 plays all titles I have tried including "3:10 To Yuma" which my BD-P1200 chokes on. I don't agree with the lawsuit but believe it is past time Samsung made a better effort to get this player working acceptably. The BD-P1400 has had a recent firmware update according to a post I read at AVSForum that gets that one working acceptably as well. Of course Samsung also has the dual format player that has required firmware updates, so who knows maybe the Blu-ray player firmware update department has had some turnover lately and the poor lady that is responsible is just overwhelmed. I have a Samsung SIR-T165 HDTV STB that went through about a year long firmware fiasco and Samsung finally just gave up and left it in very poor operating condition.

Chris

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I know there's a disclaimer in Toshiba's HD DVD owner's manuals, as well as with discs with "advanced content", advising owners to upgrade to the latest version of firmware before trying to access special features. I don't see why Samsung wouldn't do the same thing.

This whole thing smacks of first-gen VHS owners complaining that their VCRs wouldn't play EP recorded tapes: Of course they wouldn't; it wasn't part of the spec @ the time your machine was made. If some judge gets hoodwinked into thinking that all technology should be future-proof, we're screwed.

 

[Paul.S]

If they didn't, it seems they might have an actionable problem. If they did but then didn't provide their customers with the firmware upgrade, same possibly actionable problem.

 

[Cees Alons]

My disc cases line was an adstruction of the previous statement.


Cees

 

[Paul.S]

Cess, I'm afraid I still don't understand your point. And I'm not being argumentative or strategically obtuse, I just sincerely don't. Even if there was/is a disclaimer on the cases, it's Samsung that's being sued.

Which previous statement is your disc cases line an "adstruction" (?) of--mine? Or your "I don't own one of those . . ."?

 

[Cees Alons]

Don't think for a moment this is a biggie for me. Please note the smilie in my previous post!

My 'main statement' was the part "but I wouldn't be surprised if the disclaimer was there".

Meaning (as an affirmative to your point): in the manual of the Samsung players. And so it was referring to Samsung (who is the party in the case indeed).

The next line could best be read as "I think it is there, just like a similar disclaimer is printed on each individual release of BD software, if I'm not mistaken".


Cees

 

[Scott-S]

I found this warning on page 3 of the BD-1200 users manual:

 

[Paul.S]

Thank you for the clarification, Cees.

Thanks for that bit, Scott.

Stephen, is that language strong enough to minimize Samsung's liability on merchantability cause?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I would say so, but if I were representing Samsung, I would draw particular attention to the fact that, as a corporate entity and manufacturer, it can only do so much to "future-proof" its players. I would also point out that the BDP-1000 was manufactured in accordance with the specs as outlined by the BDA at the time and that the changes to the BD spec could not have reasonably been contemplated, as Samsung is a manufacturer, not a developer with respect to the BD spec. It all goes back to my analogy with VHS. Obsolescence is a fact of life with technology; get used to it.

 

[Erik_H]

I am an owner of the BD-P1200 unit that is the subject of the lawsuit and also an attorney (corp atty in the cable television industry). While the manual includes a disclaimer, the presence of a disclaimer is not, in and of itself, determinative of liability.

I purchased the 1200 last spring, and encountered no Blu-Ray playback difficulties until the release of the first two "Pirates of the Caribbean" films at midyear. On none of those "POTC" discs (film and supplemental) could the viewer advance beyond the menu screen. Samsung issued a firmware upgrade relatively quickly after the dual "POTC" release (within a few weeks, if memory serves) that solved the problem. The problems began to multiply later in the year. The final "POTC" film, released on Blu-Ray in early December, could not play beyond the title menu. "Sunshine" and "3:10 to Yuma" (among others) were also widely reported to have the same problem, and I can confirm that last week's release of "Across the Universe" follows the same pattern.

The 1200 firmware upgrade released by Samsung in early February---two months after the "POTC: At World's End" release and a series of contradictory statements from Samsung regarding the 1200 playback issues and the release of a firmware upgrade---was at most partly successful: the "POTC: At World's End" disc with the film can now be viewed, but not the supplemental disc; the upgrade apparently corrected the "Sunshine" problem but not the "3:10" problem and, as noted above, no luck for "Across the Universe."

I have followed the 1200 playback issues via postings in the forums in the AVS Forum and the High Def Digest, and if those many postings are accurate (and based on my experience, I have no reason to doubt them), problems with this unit appear to be of a broader scope than with any other Samsung Blu-Ray unit. And the stories listed in those postings about dealing with Samsung's customer service about the playback problems strike me as particularly egregious---to the point that I didn't bother following up with Samsung after their non-responsive reply to my e-mail in December describing the "POTC: At World's End" playback problem.

We'll see how this plays out in the courts and how Samsung will respond to the negative PR generated by the suit. In any event, I don't see this suit being thrown out on summary judgment solely on the grounds of the disclaimer.

 

[Paul.S]

Thanks, Erik. I wasn't at all intimating that the presence of a/the disclaimer could be grounds for dismissal of the whole matter; just was curious about a disclaimer's impact on that one allegation (merchantability).

I wonder what the (I hope significant) impact of the shoddy customer service will be.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

Nice post and I agree, although there is a long way for the plaintiff to travel from not "being thrown out on summary judgment" to proving Samsung is liable for damages. I am not an attorney, but I would have recommended including the studios and the BDA in the lawsuit since it really hasn't been determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is solely at fault here. I am sure they are intended to be included in the group of unnamed co-conspirators but shouldn't they be named as co-defendants? The suit, item 25 indicates that plaintiff purchased a BD-O1200 and I can't find that the correct model number was ever mentioned.

It is a PR nightmare for Samsung and it is good business if Samsung gets this behind them somehow quickly, either by fixing the player which really offers great core performance for DVD and Blu-ray or offering a reasonable resolution to owners. I don't think Samsung will lose a lawsuit on this issue but might lose some business.

Chris

 

[JohnRice]

I think Stephen's posts (particularly the first) hit the reality of the issue most. Class Action suits are rarely anything more than legal extortion. The absolute last thing they are about is the "class". Regardless of the outcome, I suggest none of you who bought this player hold your breath waiting to receive anything. It is quite possible that player simply is not physically capable of performing tasks that evolved after it was manufactured and sold. The risks of early adopting folks. People used to understand that. What about all those people who bought HDTV with no hdmi, because it didn't exist yet? A few greedy lawyers will make millions, but that is about it.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Legal 101: pleadings (depending on the jurisdiction) can usually be amended @ least once before the close of pleadings without consent or leave of the court. What that means is if the plaintiff sees fit to add Sony or any other member of the BDA as a co-defendant or correct typographical errors (the model number), s/he has one chance to do this without getting the court or the defendant's permission before Samsung files its statement of defence.

 

[Paul McElligott]

Perhaps someone who owned a DVD player in 1997-1998 would like to regale the plaintiff with similar tales of a new format's teething problems.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I am disappointed that Samsung can't fix this player, but I don't think it rises to the level of worthy of litigation. All new audio video products go through pains like this. This time it is just funny that Panasonic, Sony, Sharp and Pioneer can get their players to play these discs and the Samsung player chokes. Oh well, it is a shame because I sure like the BD-P1200 otherwise.

Chris