RSSSamsung sued over incompatible Blu-ray players
By Nate Mook | Published February 11, 2008, 4:26 PM
It's a story that's been hard to ignore, and now a class action lawsuit has been filed: early Blu-ray players had compatibility problems when new features and DRM were introduced into Blu-ray movies.
While Blu-ray Disc Association representatives told BetaNews at CES that early adopters "knew what they were getting into" regarding the changes to the platform, some apparently didn't. Bob McGovern, who has become the lead plaintiff in the case, says his BD-P1200 player from Samsung was unable to view "numerous Blu-ray disc titles."
In the New Jersey court filing, lawyers for the plaintiff assert, "There have been numerous complaints about the inoperability of new Blu-ray disc titles without Samsung firmware upgrades that match the new releases. Consumers have verified with the Company that does not intend to provide future firmware updates."
The case accuses Samsung of consumer fraud, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty. In addition, Samsung is accused of unjust enrichment, which simply means it benefited monetarily by selling the defective Blu-ray players.
It's not clear how many movies were affected by compatibility issues with early Blu-ray players, but it likely involves the BD+ copy-protection mechanism that was added to discs last year. BD+ relies on an embedded, programmable virtual machine that gives studios the option of creating title-specific security functions -- mechanisms specific maybe even to just one movie.
Specific playback issues including freezing were reported in October when playing "Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer" and "The Day After Tomorrow." Samsung promised a firmware fix, but according to the lawsuit, it never materialized, leaving early adopters out in the cold.
Sony's PlayStation 3 and players from other manufacturers were able to play the affected discs after a firmware update. But the lawsuit highlights the consumer backlash that can occur when selling products whose hardware and software specifications are still in flux.
The Blu-ray Disc Association expects to introduce Profile 2.0 Blu-ray players later on this year, adding a mandatory Internet connection, along with updates to BD-J, Blu-ray's interactivity layer. The PS3 is the only Blu-ray player currently on the market that will be upgradeable to Profile 2.0.
Sad news day, when 1 upset HD DVD owner can buy a Blu-ray player with a known issue, sue the company, and then make news headlines.
Score: 0
|I still can't believe the inferior format won the format war.
Score: 0
|That's your problem, Blu-ray is not inferior, it's actually much better than HD DVD.
For staters 50GB of storage allows for uncompressed soundtracks and higher bitrate encodes.
Then you have the much higher bandwidth of Blu-ray (54Mbit/sec, vs HD DVD 30Mbit/sec).
Don't forget the anti-scratch coatings that every Blu-ray disc has.
Whilst you are at it, you might want to look at the Profiles, whilst they took longer to launch, they all exceed what HD DVD is capable of. For example Profile 1.1 does 1080p in both main feature and PiP, with the PiP and main feature swapable (HD DVD does SD for the PiP). The interactivity is based on full Java, not some lightweight scripting based solution that HD DVD has.
Score: 0
|Ben, seriously... Why do you constantly blast others for posting supposedly non-factual information when you do it all the time? Hell, it seems to be your trademark.
I noticed how you always over-inflate Blu-rays numbers or specifications when it suits your needs, and make HD DVD out to be less than what it is.
For example, in your comparison it is interesting that you chose to use Blu-ray's total raw bandwidth, yet use HD DVD's video+audio bandwidth only.
Raw:
Blu-ray - 53.95 Mbps
HD DVD - 36.55 Mbps
Video+Audio Only:
Blu-ray - 48.00 Mbps
HD DVD - 30.24 Mpbs
Oh, and don't forget that the anti-scratch coatings on Blu-ray discs were a necessity to bring their level of protection up to that of DVD / HD DVD. Don't pretend that it was an extra level of protection on top of a non-existent layer of protection.
Score: 0
|And by "inferior" you of course mean "superior in most every way." Unless you consider lower capacity and bit rates to be positive traits...or maybe you just like the color better?
Score: 0
|With MPEG 4 you don't need the higher bitrates Blu-Ray offers for video. Also, the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack commonly found on HD-DVD's sound identical to the uncompressed PCM audio on Blu-Ray. As for the extras on both formats, I could care less. I only want the movie in HD audio and video. Blu-Ray also has significantly slower load times in some cases than the Toshiba HD-A1 player did (Pirates of the Caribbean for example).
Score: 0
|....very little of which actually matters when comparing audio/video quality of the feature film.
30Mbit/sec is more than enough for 1080 and lossless HD audio.
Score: 0
|-edit-
removed, comment system bugged
Score: 0
|even with this hddvd still lost. sad very sad. funny for me, sad for you. i smile, you cry.
sad very sad.
Score: 0
|this is NOT Sony's fault whatsoever....
while Sony did start the format they did NOT manufacture these players...Samsung did...is that a difficult concept to understand?...
Score: 0
|I'm going to agree with you here. Hell, I'll even go so far as to give Sony credit for thinking far enough ahead, by making the PS3 capable of being upgraded to 2.0 (it's just too bad that they couldn't be bothered including this 'upgradability' into their standalone players).
Score: 0
|So the patent holder has nothing to do with allowing samsung to produce incompatible blu-ray players?
I doubt very much samsung were producing these players without permision from the owner. So there is more than one party to blaim for this.... it starts with samsung
Score: 0
|Oh my gosh! Who in the world could have seen this coming??
Oh, that's right... most of us.
Score: 0
|If I were the BDA I'd pull the certification of these Samsung players.
Score: 0
|Uh...it's a little late for that. Besides...the BDA already said:
"While Blu-ray Disc Association representatives told BetaNews at CES that early adopters "knew what they were getting into" regarding the changes to the platform"
so as far as the BDA is conserned..."you know what you were getting into"...yea good luck defending that one.
Score: 0
|Samsung didnt actually do anything wrong, they released what they thought was a fully functioning BD player. The real culprit is Sony not only do they screw the consumer but also electronic makers too. This really is a sad time for consumer electronics....
Score: 0
|not at all....Samsung is just as much a member of the BDA as Sony is....they knew the issues with profiles just as Sony did...Samsung themselves CHOSE to release players that could not have their profiles updated...and ontop of that Samsung seems to not be releasing firmware updates...this is such a common misconception that Blu-ray = Sony...while this is a Sony backed product Sony is far from the only member of the BDA...
This should be a non-issue....if the hardware manufacturer is on top of releasing proper firmware updates then these movies will work...
This is not even a "profile" issue, although some would want you to believe it is...all of the movies mentioned are profile 1.0 films...this is simply an issue with the Samsumg players...nothing to do with the format...
I don't know exactly where Samsung broke the law, but they should be held accountable for this in some way...
Score: 0
|Not a misconception at all...
They own the patents. They *started* the BDA.
They can very easily pull licensing and drop the BDA at a moments notice.
Sony = Blu-Ray. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Score: 0
|How many times must this be covered?
Sony is the developer of the format, plain and simple. It is theirs... there is no other way to look at it.
Samsung (as well as Sony and a slew of others) are members of the organization founded to solidify the standards and promote the format.
Sony = Blu-ray. Blu-ray = Sony.
No, Samsung never "broke the law" per se, but they did show apparent total disregard for their own organization's "mandatory" cut-off date for non-compliant Profile 1.1 players, continuing to release under-spec'd consoles well after.
The various Blu-ray manufacturers all seem to be doing their own thing. None of them seem to be on the same page with regards to what the consumer should be able to do with their shiny new state-of-the-art player. Yeah, that's a very impressive association that's enforcing those "standards".
Score: 0
|Why do I have a feeling that if they win they will just get a $50 coupon for a new Blu-ray player or movie (with the lawyers collecting millions)...
Score: 0
|Because that's how it always works. The coupon will probibly say save $50 off a Samsung Blu-Ray player.
Score: 0
|Makes it kind of pointless to even file these lawsuits if Samsung's response is to tell consumers they get $50 off a new $400 Profile 2.0 Blu-Ray player.
Score: 0
|Excellent stuff. Maybe this will cause the same kind of backlash that the rootkit fiasco did and tip the balance back in the favour of HD DVD. Probably not.
Score: 0
|HAHA clutching at straws?
Score: 0
|I can see the frustration--and I hate sony--but a lawsuit over this? Where'd Samsung actually break the law?
The case accuses Samsung of consumer fraud, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty.
Where did Samsung breach this? Anyone...?
Score: 0
|Im wondering that myself.
Score: 0
|By still selling players they knew would not play some Blu-Ray discs.
Score: 0
|I agree, they should sue Sony for letting Samsung make such a messed up player. Its Sony's fault not Samsung. Granted Samsung could have said "this is bs, people are going to get pissed because its not done so we refuse to make it". Ok so maybe all companies who make Blu-ray players and Sony should be sued. Hell this may happen anyway once more peoples players stop playing new movies.
Score: 0
|The violations alleged begin on page 11 of the court filing PDF link in the article.
Score: 0
|Oh crap.
This should be fun....
We all knew this was going to happen right?
Score: 0
|Oh yeah, I knew this was coming sooner or later.
Score: 0
|