don't they have firmware updates for that kind of thing? I mean I'n not positive, but seems the xbox 360 hd-dvd updates for just about every HD disk I put in it. And I've read about people "bricking" their players with bad disks or ISO burns or whatever, so I imagine it would at least be possible. If he is THAT worried about it, why did he spend a grand for unproven technology?
They are referred to as "defective players" throughout the document, apparently because they won't play Blu-ray discs of the newer standard levels (it's not really specified in the piece).
The plaintiff is a New Jersey consumer who bought the player in July last year. And it's a class-action, because he "assumes" that there are a uncountable number of deceived consumers like him.
But why just Samsung? Other BD-players won't play some newly newly BDs either.
And did the manufacturer really promise (explicitly or implicitly) that the players would continue to play all future Blu-ray discs?
I'll be interested to see what happens, as one who has a profile 1.0 player, although not a Samsung, that promises not to play the newer special features (SE being the operative word since it does play the movie). Unless this suit is not about that, printed off the 15 page document but haven't read it yet.
The sad thing about a class action lawsuit is it'll end in a settlement where the class (Samsung BD player owners) will receive a free firmware upgrade disc and the lawyers will get several million dollars. That's how these things always go.
Sadly, that's the way it usually happens. The lawyers always make out like bandits.
Some things stood out at me in the document "Defendant has not repaired or UPDATED the defective Blu-ray disc players..." and "failing to issue firmware updates." So the dude just doesnt want to download or have a firmware sent to him instead of contacting Samsung or has Samsung not put out a firmware update for his player? Sounds like a stupid lawsuit to me and my scanning didnt see anything about "profiling."
As I understand it, it's not about profiles, but the fact that it can't play specific titles. Yes FW updates should be able to fix it, so I'm not sure what the purpose of the lawsuit is. Not to mention that some of the titles that required a FW update could have been related to authoring problems and other disc problems, but it could have been easier to to player FW updates than recall the discs (an example would be Children of Men on HD DVD).
I think you nailed this one. Ironically, the class can already get free FW discs. I predict that this will lead someone to sue over BD profiles, since there is no way for an average customer to know about that....
I sure can, and I'm happy to see it happen. I bought a Blu-ray player, it should play every Blu-ray title I buy. Fact is, it doesn't. Who's fault, no one but Samsung.
I bought a PS3 several weeks ago to replace my faulty BD-P1000, it has no problems playing any Blu-ray discs, even the several that the P1000 wouldn't even spin.
I've got a GE 8 track player in the basement that refuses to play BRs and HD-DVDs. Heck, I can't even push the discs into the slot. Anyone want to join my "class"?
It could be that some of those titles were manufactured out of spec and rather than have the studios recall the product, most companies did FW updates.
As a working lawyer who used to practise with a firm that was getting into the class action, ahem, "action", this hardly surprises me. The question is whether or not the lawyers will get enough people to constitute a class. How many BDP 1000s did Samsung sell?
Exactly Ron. You make a damn good point here. It seems easy for people to joke and make light of a situation with a bunch of BS analogies that have nothing to do with the problem. When I invest money in products I expect them to do what they state to do. No one would expect an 8-track to play BDs or HDs, so where that off the wall comment comes from is beyond me. This lawsuit shows me that the average consumer may not want to put up with the crap that the rest of us have become accustomed to over this past year. Bluray needs to finalize that spec and only sell players that meet it. The rest need to be removed from the stores or discounted with a disclaimer.
Er, surely 'wally' was poking fun at the lawsuit by suggesting another equally-stupid one, namely suing because an obsolete format doesn't play a newer one?
This is gonna be very interesting. I was waiting for this to happen, with a plaintiff alleging breach of the implied warrant of merchantability, which is precisely one of the allegations in the complaint.
Happy we've got an attorney in the thread. Stephen, couldn't Samsung avoid liability in connection with the implied warrant of merchantability cause of action by having a disclaimer in the manual? Something along the lines of "Because of differences in authoring of some Blu-ray Discs, some discs will not play."
And doesn't the class have to be certified before the complaint is filed?
I don't own one of those Samsungs, but I wouldn't be surprised if the disclaimer was there. A similar disclaimer is printed on the disc cases, isn't it?
Ah frivolous lawsuits. When we built our house, the window screens actually had big stickers on them warning that the purpose was to keep insects out, not people!
My guess is someone sued the screen manufacturer after a burglar broke into their house thru a window equipped with said window screens.